Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
Ooops, missed that. Got it. ~ Roujo On 2013-07-28 10:54 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote: On 28/07/2013 10:52 PM, Jonathan Rouillard wrote: Naughtiness (Rule 2356) --- PVN: 1 Unvirtuous: Fool By the way, naughtiness no longer exists.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
Accepted. I'll clean up that part of the report - I'm doing it manually right now, but I really should automate it. Sorry about that. ~ Roujo On 2013-07-29 5:14 AM, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On 29 Jul 2013, at 03:52, Jonathan Rouillard jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote: Sitting: Turiski Walker Yally Supine: arkestra ehird FKA441344 FSX G. Machiavelli Roujo Walker Wes CoE: I can't be in both lists.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3362 assigned to OscarMeyr
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote: On Jul 26, 2013, at 3:44 PM, Benjamin Schultz wrote: Ah. My search-fu failed me. Probably because it was broken over multiple lines. Proto: The Rulekeepor SHALL publish the entire ruleset as one line. —Machiavelli AGAINT. That would disrupt the fountain. -- OscarMeyr
DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians
Curry's paradox hasn't gotten much attention in Agora. It came up in discussion a couple of times, and in terms of usage in-game, all I found was someone CFJing a free-floating sentence If this sentence is true, then I win. That was about 10 years ago. Well, this isn't a free-floating sentence. I'm not claiming that I win merely because I uttered If this sentence is true, then I win, or the mutually-referential version of that. The sentences in question are not directly self-referential or even mutually-referential. This is more of a Curry-flavoured confused deputy, with rule 2337 as the deputy. It says that the author can destroy a promise with notice IFF the sentence in its destruction by author condition slot is true. So: - Sentence A: I can do Y. - Sentence B: IF (I can do X), THEN (Z is true). - Rule 2337 says that (I can do X) IFF (sentence A is true) - Rule 2337 says that (I can do Y) IFF (sentence B is true) As a result, R2337 says that (I can do X) IFF (IF (I can do X) THEN (Z is true)). So, R2337 says that Z is true. And Z in this case is that I can de-register everyone else, and that nobody else can register. This is consistent and within the power of R2337: R869 secures de-registration, and it has Power 2. And it does not secure the prevention of people from registering. R2337 has Power 3. My announced intent to destroy the promises is a red herring, by the way. The logical deduction only refers to my ability to destroy a promise with notice. So as long as the promises exist, R2337 asserts Z. It is sufficient here to assume classical logic (i.e. boolean, true-or-false logic) works inside the R2337 says that prefix. And, it is not even necessary to assume that. The conclusion requires only a few principles of natural (relevant, constructive, paraconsistent) deduction. I can elaborate on this, if someone wants to argue that some type of formal logic other than classical is what works inside R2337 says that. In particular if you think that classical logic should work within R2337 says that, but tentatively, subject to revision if it results in a contradiction, then you're out of luck, because there is no contradiction. Z is consistent. It is true that this same mechanism could easily be used to create contradiction in the rules, by doing the same thing with NOT Z, for example. But that's not a reason to declare the mechanism invalid. After all, standard rule-amending processes could also be used to create contradiction in the rules, if players wanted to. The only real difference is that this can be done unilaterally and immediately. That is merely a political rather than a logical difference. I've only used it to cause the rule to assert Z. I have no plans to cause it to also assert NOT Z or any other sort of contradiction. And nobody else can use this mechanism to cause it to assert a contradiction, because Z closes the door behind me, and locks it.
DIS: Gratuitous arguments for Agorans
As I've been told in the context of Gerontocracy (which, BTW, was lifted by proposal 7519), the normal Agoran approach is to have fun with the unexpected new rules, rather than complain about them. But, as I understand, even though dictatorship isn't unprecedented around here, it tends to be associated with A LOT more drama than the usual wins which are strictly cosmetic. There tends to be a fair bit of counter-scamming, unfair judgements, people leaving Agora in a huff, and all that. There's something irritating about someone having absolute power over everyone, I guess. (In this case, that someone is a cat. Does that make it any better? She's quite fluffy you know.) Well we don't need to look very far for counter-scams, since nothing prevents any other player from doing the exact same thing that I did. Nevermind any other place this type of issue could arise. The simplest solution was for there not to be any other players. Non-players can't create promises, for example. And if there are no other players, nobody is qualified to judge (and there's no CotC) so that takes care of the crooked bench. Finally, you can't leave Agora, seeing as you've already been thrown out. Which also means you're released, and so my cat doesn't actually have any power over you. All in all, this seems like the best solution, doesn't it?
DIS: Gratuitous arguments for lawyers
I know some of you here advocate a less logicist and more legalist approach, and I guess this is the bit where you watch the logicians sweat as Peter Suber would have it. Well, the paradox I present to you is: how should a legalist rule in a game which has a tradition of absurd literalism? In most other contexts, the sort of reasoning I'm using would just be dismissed, but is it actually _fair_ to do so in Agora? You might wish that we were less logicist, and might well support a proposal to explicitly make it so. And indeed, there were a few suggestions along these lines during the long paradox discussion about a month and a half ago. It is plausible that this stunt will catalyse support for such things. But, as of now, none of these have been enacted (or even formally proposed, AFAIK). An abrupt change to the common law without explicit statute would generally speaking be unfair, that is precisely what precedent is all about. And the precedent clearly has granted all sorts of wins by paradox to various liar-paradox-type constructions. So this stunt ought to fly as well. (In fact this is more creative, if I do say so myself. Someone owes me something very shiny.) Now it might be objected that I am one to talk about fairness, when I hardly have clean hands. Historical wins by paradox were basically cosmetic, not disrupting anything. Whereas I, after all, am claiming Agora for my cat! Perhaps that justifies a certain amount of unfairness in turn. Taking over is a rarer but still perfectly traditional way to win. As I recently learned, it actually pre-dates Agora and goes back to Nomic World (Lindstrom's dictatorship). So I don't think the fact that my attempt to win is by takeover really does justify anything. (But of course I'd say that...)
DIS: Re: BUS: May as well REALLY settle this
On 29/07/2013 5:30 PM, omd wrote: I suppose it's appropriate to say that paraconsistent logic isn't an appropriate answer; unless the rules use language that expect us to work indirectly to determine the possibility of an action, it's necessary to go all the way to intuitionistic logic. I am, as it happens, a mathematical constructivist. The reasoning is fully constructive (goes through in intuitionistic logic).
DIS: Re: BUS: Stuff
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote: In the name of Davy I, Queen of Agora Nomic, CAT 24, and her other realms, I cause the new rule created by proposal 7537 to amend itself to read: Hmm... it is interesting how Rule 101 (iv) might be interpreted in view of there only being one player. Even if only one player need review a particular rule change, it is still required to go through a reasonably public process.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Stuff
On 29/07/2013 5:48 PM, omd wrote: On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Foolfool1...@gmail.com wrote: In the name of Davy I, Queen of Agora Nomic, CAT 24, and her other realms, I cause the new rule created by proposal 7537 to amend itself to read: Hmm... it is interesting how Rule 101 (iv) might be interpreted in view of there only being one player. Even if only one player need review a particular rule change, it is still required to go through a reasonably public process. How rule 101 might HAVE been interpreted, past tense. Your proposal passed. Hey, wasn't my idea...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Stuff
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote: How rule 101 might HAVE been interpreted, past tense. Your proposal passed. Hey, wasn't my idea... Good point.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: May as well REALLY settle this
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote: I am, as it happens, a mathematical constructivist. The reasoning is fully constructive (goes through in intuitionistic logic). Please elaborate.
DIS: Re: BUS: May as well REALLY settle this
On 29 July 2013 22:30, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: It would, incidentally, be more polite to attempt to achieve a dictatorship in a way other than deregistering everyone. Especially when it would have been just as easy to do it some other, less annoying, way.
Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 16:26 -0400, Fool wrote: Curry's paradox hasn't gotten much attention in Agora. It came up in discussion a couple of times, and in terms of usage in-game, all I found was someone CFJing a free-floating sentence If this sentence is true, then I win. That was about 10 years ago. Well, this isn't a free-floating sentence. I'm not claiming that I win merely because I uttered If this sentence is true, then I win, or the mutually-referential version of that. The sentences in question are not directly self-referential or even mutually-referential. This is more of a Curry-flavoured confused deputy, with rule 2337 as the deputy. It says that the author can destroy a promise with notice IFF the sentence in its destruction by author condition slot is true. So: - Sentence A: I can do Y. - Sentence B: IF (I can do X), THEN (Z is true). - Rule 2337 says that (I can do X) IFF (sentence A is true) - Rule 2337 says that (I can do Y) IFF (sentence B is true) As a result, R2337 says that (I can do X) IFF (IF (I can do X) THEN (Z is true)). You forgot the Gerontocracy. The with notice is modified by the Elder objections, thus breaking your loop. Also, Agora generally denies the law of the excluded middle; A iff B does not imply that A and B are both true, nor that they're both false, here. I'm not sure if it's reasonable to claim that sentence A is neither true or false here (although that should at least get you a trivial win by paradox), but I'm reasonable sure people will try. Finally, any method that achieves dictatorships via locking players out from gameplay for a week or more is typically frowned upon (there are definitely cases where I and coconspirators could have done this, but chose not to; being hated by the rest of Agora is generally not worth a dictatorship). Unless it's aimed at one player specifically, and the scam is an attempt to exact vengenance upon them, I guess. (That doesn't happen very often, though.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians
On 29/07/2013 6:15 PM, Alex Smith wrote: You forgot the Gerontocracy. The with notice is modified by the Elder objections, thus breaking your loop. I did not. Gerontocracy was lifted by proposal 7519. Also, Agora generally denies the law of the excluded middle It's constructive and does not require law of excluded middle. More details later. Finally, any method that achieves dictatorships via locking players out from gameplay for a week or more is typically frowned upon Where does a week or more come from? (there are definitely cases where I and coconspirators could have done this, but chose not to; being hated by the rest of Agora is generally not worth a dictatorship). I don't understand this bit anyway. Of course dictators are hated.
Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote: The sentences in question are not directly self-referential or even mutually-referential. This is more of a Curry-flavoured confused deputy, with rule 2337 as the deputy. It says that the author can destroy a promise with notice IFF the sentence in its destruction by author condition slot is true. So: - Sentence A: I can do Y. - Sentence B: IF (I can do X), THEN (Z is true). - Rule 2337 says that (I can do X) IFF (sentence A is true) - Rule 2337 says that (I can do Y) IFF (sentence B is true) The way I read it Rule 2337 implies IF, not IFF. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: May as well REALLY settle this
On 29/07/2013 6:16 PM, Alex Smith wrote: On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 16:26 -0400, Fool wrote: I cash the promise titled !!! [Text: !!!. Cashing condition: This promise has existed for 2 months. It was created May 21.] CoE: Which two months has it existed for? June, certainly. But it hasn't existed all of May, nor all of July. Haha. Anyway this does not prevent me from saluting its author.
Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians
On 29/07/2013 6:20 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote: The sentences in question are not directly self-referential or even mutually-referential. This is more of a Curry-flavoured confused deputy, with rule 2337 as the deputy. It says that the author can destroy a promise with notice IFF the sentence in its destruction by author condition slot is true. So: - Sentence A: I can do Y. - Sentence B: IF (I can do X), THEN (Z is true). - Rule 2337 says that (I can do X) IFF (sentence A is true) - Rule 2337 says that (I can do Y) IFF (sentence B is true) The way I read it Rule 2337 implies IF, not IFF. One clause says IF. Another clause secures promise destruction, and there's no other instrument allowing it, so ONLY IF.
Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 18:20 -0400, Fool wrote: On 29/07/2013 6:15 PM, Alex Smith wrote: You forgot the Gerontocracy. The with notice is modified by the Elder objections, thus breaking your loop. I did not. Gerontocracy was lifted by proposal 7519. Also, Agora generally denies the law of the excluded middle It's constructive and does not require law of excluded middle. More details later. How do you define iff (in the rules) in the absence of the law of excluded middle? It may not be the same way that the rules themselves do. Finally, any method that achieves dictatorships via locking players out from gameplay for a week or more is typically frowned upon Where does a week or more come from? It's the length of time to adopt a proposal; most such scams normally involved preventing everyone else from voting for long enough to pass a dictatorship proposal. (there are definitely cases where I and coconspirators could have done this, but chose not to; being hated by the rest of Agora is generally not worth a dictatorship). I don't understand this bit anyway. Of course dictators are hated. If they dispose of their dictatorship quickly via win+trophy, Agora typically tolerates them. (Sometimes there's a race where someone with a power-1 dictatorship tries to get it at a higher power; normally the time limit for that is long enough for the dictatorship to be removed via proposal, and it's considered unsporting, but nonetheless occasionally attempted, to use the dictatorship to prevent the proposal taking effect correctly.) FWIW, if rule 101 hadn't been mostly repealed, your scam wouldn't work because rule 1698 would prevent you from deregistering if you were the last remaining player, thus your scam would violate your own rule 101 rights. And it may not have been repealed yet due to your CoE. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote: On 29/07/2013 6:20 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote: The sentences in question are not directly self-referential or even mutually-referential. This is more of a Curry-flavoured confused deputy, with rule 2337 as the deputy. It says that the author can destroy a promise with notice IFF the sentence in its destruction by author condition slot is true. So: - Sentence A: I can do Y. - Sentence B: IF (I can do X), THEN (Z is true). - Rule 2337 says that (I can do X) IFF (sentence A is true) - Rule 2337 says that (I can do Y) IFF (sentence B is true) The way I read it Rule 2337 implies IF, not IFF. One clause says IF. Another clause secures promise destruction, and there's no other instrument allowing it, so ONLY IF. I think if you are going to prove it's constructively valid, you need to be more precise on that point. (Not that I've checked yet whether it works with either IFF or just IF.) I think constructively securing acts as if not explicitly permitted, then not possible. Which means it's (IF x THEN y) AND (IF (NOT x) THEN (NOT y)), which I think is _not_ constructively equivalent to x IFF y. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: How do you define iff (in the rules) in the absence of the law of excluded middle? It may not be the same way that the rules themselves do. Ah, yes. That makes sense. ((a - b) - a) - b holds intuitionistically, but (((a - b) - a) (~(a - b) - ~a)) - b does not. The rules say the latter, including the rule about security.
Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote: If they dispose of their dictatorship quickly via win+trophy, Agora typically tolerates them. (Sometimes there's a race where someone with a power-1 dictatorship tries to get it at a higher power; normally the time limit for that is long enough for the dictatorship to be removed via proposal, and it's considered unsporting, but nonetheless occasionally attempted, to use the dictatorship to prevent the proposal taking effect correctly.) I suspect scams that make it very hard to get whether it worked clearly resolved by CFJ (because neither CotC nor who is an eligible Judge is agreed upon, and the scammer's preferred option has _only_ himself as the options) are not too popular either :P Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians
On 29/07/2013 6:27 PM, Alex Smith wrote: Where does a week or more come from? It's the length of time to adopt a proposal; most such scams normally involved preventing everyone else from voting for long enough to pass a dictatorship proposal. I passed a rule giving me immediate amendment powers. Also, I re-opened the proposal pool. If they dispose of their dictatorship quickly via win+trophy, Agora typically tolerates them. Uh.. ok. What's the trophy and what's the time limit for getting it? FWIW, if rule 101 hadn't been mostly repealed, your scam wouldn't work because rule 1698 would prevent you from deregistering if you were the last remaining player, thus your scam would violate your own rule 101 rights. And it may not have been repealed yet due to your CoE. I did not de-register myself.
Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians
On 29/07/2013 6:32 PM, omd wrote: On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Alex Smithais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: How do you define iff (in the rules) in the absence of the law of excluded middle? It may not be the same way that the rules themselves do. Ah, yes. That makes sense. ((a - b)- a) - b holds intuitionistically, but (((a - b) - a) (~(a - b) - ~a)) - b does not. Ok. The rules say the latter, including the rule about security. How's that. Why is it (~(a-b) - ~a) and not (a - (a-b)) ? Also, (((a-b)-a) (~(a-b) - ~a)) - ~~b. So, you admit it's NOT IMPOSSIBLE for me to do this stuff? :-)
Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians
On 29 July 2013 23:40, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote: On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote: If they dispose of their dictatorship quickly via win+trophy, Agora typically tolerates them. (Sometimes there's a race where someone with a power-1 dictatorship tries to get it at a higher power; normally the time limit for that is long enough for the dictatorship to be removed via proposal, and it's considered unsporting, but nonetheless occasionally attempted, to use the dictatorship to prevent the proposal taking effect correctly.) I suspect scams that make it very hard to get whether it worked clearly resolved by CFJ (because neither CotC nor who is an eligible Judge is agreed upon, and the scammer's preferred option has _only_ himself as the options) are not too popular either :P Which would violate our R101 ii right if R101 exists. I liked Rule 101.
Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote: How's that. Why is it (~(a-b) - ~a) and not (a - (a-b)) ? IMPOSSIBLE except as allowed ~(allowed) - ~a It's allowed if a - b, therefore ~(a - b) - ~a. So, you admit it's NOT IMPOSSIBLE for me to do this stuff? :-) Possibly.
Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians
This whole thing strikes me as being in incredibly poor form and I disapprove of it. (People who were around to see me years ago can stop laughing now.)
Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 18:44 -0400, Fool wrote: Uh.. ok. What's the trophy and what's the time limit for getting it? Anything permanent that sticks around in the gamestate. Typical dictatorship trophies include my Patent Title of H., the Town Fountain, and omd's trophy whereby e extended the voting period of a proposal for several decades (strangely, I don't see that one in recent reports any more). -- ais523
Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians
On 29/07/2013 6:59 PM, Alex Smith wrote: On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 18:44 -0400, Fool wrote: Uh.. ok. What's the trophy and what's the time limit for getting it? Anything permanent that sticks around in the gamestate. Typical dictatorship trophies include my Patent Title of H., the Town Fountain, and omd's trophy whereby e extended the voting period of a proposal for several decades (strangely, I don't see that one in recent reports any more). And the time limit? Note that simply returning things to the way they were isn't a good option. We surely should try to fix the hole first, and look for any other related holes as well. I am open to formal and informal proposals on this point. (If this succeeded, which it did :-) If it failed, well, you have even less cause to complain.)
Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 19:15 -0400, Fool wrote: And the time limit? Typically as long as it takes people to determine whether the scam worked or not. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians
To expand on my previous argument, for what it's worth, I really don't see an interpretation that causes a problem whose solution would be making a rule (about evaluating the rules generally) saying something that (a) is assumed in just about any other context and (b) has always been left to custom as likely to stand up. In a sort of proof by contradiction, the solution would be unreasonable, therefore the problem does not exist.
Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 19:15 -0400, Fool wrote: And the time limit? Typically as long as it takes people to determine whether the scam worked or not. Note that this has not always been followed; scshunt kept an unambiguous dictatorship for a long time. However, e did not deregister anyone or otherwise disrupt gameplay.
Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 19:18 -0400, omd wrote: On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 19:15 -0400, Fool wrote: And the time limit? Typically as long as it takes people to determine whether the scam worked or not. Note that this has not always been followed; scshunt kept an unambiguous dictatorship for a long time. However, e did not deregister anyone or otherwise disrupt gameplay. And nonetheless, people got annoyed about it, IIRC. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians
On 29/07/2013 6:46 PM, omd wrote: On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Foolfool1...@gmail.com wrote: How's that. Why is it (~(a-b) - ~a) and not (a - (a-b)) ? IMPOSSIBLE except as allowed ~(allowed) - ~a It's allowed if a - b, therefore ~(a - b) - ~a. So, you admit it's NOT IMPOSSIBLE for me to do this stuff? :-) Possibly. :-) Let's ask if you are a player (c). If I de-registered you, you are NOT a player (b - ~c). But (b - ~c) - (~~b - ~c). So if it was NOT IMPOSSIBLE for me to de-register you, you are not a player.
Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 19:35 -0400, Fool wrote: Let's ask if you are a player (c). If I de-registered you, you are NOT a player (b - ~c). But (b - ~c) - (~~b - ~c). So if it was NOT IMPOSSIBLE for me to de-register you, you are not a player. But it is impossible, it's secured and you have power 0! -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Results for Proposals 7530-7547
On 29/07/2013 7:33 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote: I assume Assessor. Voting results for Proposals 7530-7547: COE: By Rule 1950, the eligible voting entities are set at the _distribution_ of the proposal. I am not sure whether your scam succeeds (well, I doubt it succeeds at all, but hypothetically) at cancelling the votes already cast by deregistering voters, but even if it did they would FAIL QUORUM instead of passing. See the recent TIME OUT scam... making someone not an eligible voter does set their voting limit to 0. Also it would not FAIL QUORUM, because quorum adjusts (precedent in the FLR annotation to the quorum rule as I recall.)
Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians
On 29/07/2013 7:37 PM, Alex Smith wrote: On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 19:35 -0400, Fool wrote: Let's ask if you are a player (c). If I de-registered you, you are NOT a player (b - ~c). But (b - ~c) - (~~b - ~c). So if it was NOT IMPOSSIBLE for me to de-register you, you are not a player. But it is impossible, it's secured and you have power 0! I was addressing the constructivist objection. Anyways, I did see your other message (sorry, a lot to reply to). The rule has power three and says I can do it by announcement. You really have to argue the rule does not say so, the other arguments are extraneous. Otherwise you're saying whenever something is secured, and a sufficiently powered rule says it CAN be done by announcement, it still fails.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Results for Proposals 7530-7547
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote: On 29/07/2013 7:33 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote: I assume Assessor. Voting results for Proposals 7530-7547: COE: By Rule 1950, the eligible voting entities are set at the _distribution_ of the proposal. I am not sure whether your scam succeeds (well, I doubt it succeeds at all, but hypothetically) at cancelling the votes already cast by deregistering voters, but even if it did they would FAIL QUORUM instead of passing. See the recent TIME OUT scam... making someone not an eligible voter does set their voting limit to 0. I'm claiming you haven't made them not eligible voters in the first place, even if you deregistered them. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 19:41 -0400, Fool wrote: Anyways, I did see your other message (sorry, a lot to reply to). The rule has power three and says I can do it by announcement. You really have to argue the rule does not say so, the other arguments are extraneous. Otherwise you're saying whenever something is secured, and a sufficiently powered rule says it CAN be done by announcement, it still fails. Hmm. I thought that was indeed the case, but it seems that that higher standard only applies to rule changes, not secured changes in general. (So any of your attempts to change rules via this scam fail, but that by itself does not stop the deregistration.) However, Rule 1688 says except as allowed by an Instrument. I don't think you can point to a single instrument that's doing the allowing here (given that you've constructed your logic based on the interaction of multiple rules), and the rule doesn't say an Instrument or combination of Instruments, so it still stops the scam, just not for the reason I thought. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians
On 29/07/2013 7:49 PM, Alex Smith wrote: On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 19:41 -0400, Fool wrote: Anyways, I did see your other message (sorry, a lot to reply to). The rule has power three and says I can do it by announcement. You really have to argue the rule does not say so, the other arguments are extraneous. Otherwise you're saying whenever something is secured, and a sufficiently powered rule says it CAN be done by announcement, it still fails. Hmm. I thought that was indeed the case, but it seems that that higher standard only applies to rule changes, not secured changes in general. (So any of your attempts to change rules via this scam fail, but that by itself does not stop the deregistration.) Nonsense. Once everyone is de-registered, the rest follows by ordinary processes. However, Rule 1688 says except as allowed by an Instrument. I don't think you can point to a single instrument that's doing the allowing here (given that you've constructed your logic based on the interaction of multiple rules), and the rule doesn't say an Instrument or combination of Instruments, so it still stops the scam, just not for the reason I thought. Well, that still means that any such permission that occurs by multiple rules interacting fails. E.g. something is secured, one rule says that the holder of an office CAN do something by announcement, various other rules identify the holder of that office. All of those fail.
Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote: However, Rule 1688 says except as allowed by an Instrument. I don't think you can point to a single instrument that's doing the allowing here (given that you've constructed your logic based on the interaction of multiple rules), and the rule doesn't say an Instrument or combination of Instruments, so it still stops the scam, just not for the reason I thought. Well, that still means that any such permission that occurs by multiple rules interacting fails. E.g. something is secured, one rule says that the holder of an office CAN do something by announcement, various other rules identify the holder of that office. All of those fail. FWIW, for this reason, I completely disagree with ais523's argument.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Results for Proposals 7530-7547
On 29/07/2013 7:46 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: See the recent TIME OUT scam... making someone not an eligible voter does set their voting limit to 0. I'm claiming you haven't made them not eligible voters in the first place, even if you deregistered them. That was the TIME OUT scam -- made someone inactive before resolution. And it would have worked if it weren't for those pesky kids.
Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote: :-) Let's ask if you are a player (c). If I de-registered you, you are NOT a player (b - ~c). But (b - ~c) - (~~b - ~c). So if it was NOT IMPOSSIBLE for me to de-register you, you are not a player. Let's ask if you are a dictator (c). If you deregistered me, then you are a dictator (b - c). But (b - c) - (~~b - c) does not hold, so you are not a dictator. You're right, intuitionistic logic is too weird. I suppose either (a) apply intuitionistic only to the success of an action, and add a rule of inference possible(A), attempted(A) |- effects(A) (b) relevant logic (c) just get rid of anything resembling modus tollens and apply only direct forward reasoning to the rules (more restrictive than any standard paraconsistent logic I know of, though I do not know that much) there's gotta be something consistent! :P
Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians
On 29/07/2013 8:04 PM, omd wrote: On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Foolfool1...@gmail.com wrote: :-) Let's ask if you are a player (c). If I de-registered you, you are NOT a player (b - ~c). But (b - ~c) - (~~b - ~c). So if it was NOT IMPOSSIBLE for me to de-register you, you are not a player. Let's ask if you are a dictator (c). If you deregistered me, then you are a dictator (b - c). But (b - c) - (~~b - c) does not hold, so you are not a dictator. Nuh uh. (b - c) - (~~b - c) does not hold does not mean ~c. In fact I still get ~~c. You're right, intuitionistic logic is too weird. Heck no. Classical logic is weird.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Results for Proposals 7530-7547
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote: On 29/07/2013 7:46 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: See the recent TIME OUT scam... making someone not an eligible voter does set their voting limit to 0. I'm claiming you haven't made them not eligible voters in the first place, even if you deregistered them. That was the TIME OUT scam -- made someone inactive before resolution. And it would have worked if it weren't for those pesky kids. I don't see anything in the Rules where activity changes affect votes on proposals after the voting period has already begun. If that was judged to the opposite effect I would suggest a reconsideration. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Results for Proposals 7530-7547
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote: I don't see anything in the Rules where activity changes affect votes on proposals after the voting period has already begun. If that was judged to the opposite effect I would suggest a reconsideration. That scam was for a General Election, where the eligible voters are the active players rather than the active players at initiation. That does not apply here. However: VVLOP is a player switch, tracked by the Assessor, whose value is a non-negative integer; the default value for a player's VVLOP is eir DVLOP. The voting limit of an entity on an Ordinary Decision is eir VVLOP. The voting limit of a non-player on an Ordinary Decision is thus indeterminate.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Results for Proposals 7530-47
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:16 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: x7531 30 O omd Painfully explicit timing x7532 30 O omd Alternative: just ban last-minute actions x7533 30 O omd Referendum on date rewriting I almost prefer the scam version. Don't blame me the next time there's a date ambiguity... *7539 10 O Machiavelli Tickets Seriously?
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Results for Proposals 7530-47
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 21:20 -0400, omd wrote: Seriously? The proposal doesn't do anything. Proposals written in the form of a question normally don't do a whole lot. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote: The sentences in question are not directly self-referential or even mutually-referential. This is more of a Curry-flavoured confused deputy, with rule 2337 as the deputy. It says that the author can destroy a promise with notice IFF the sentence in its destruction by author condition slot is true. So: If a promise has one or more conditions under which the author of the promise can destroy it, and they are all satisfied, then the author CAN destroy that promise with notice. I fail to see the alleged biconditional. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote: The sentences in question are not directly self-referential or even mutually-referential. This is more of a Curry-flavoured confused deputy, with rule 2337 as the deputy. It says that the author can destroy a promise with notice IFF the sentence in its destruction by author condition slot is true. So: If a promise has one or more conditions under which the author of the promise can destroy it, and they are all satisfied, then the author CAN destroy that promise with notice. Per a discussion on IRC, the fact that the rules /use/ the truth value of a particular statement for some unrelated purpose shouldn't actually affect anything. Consider the statement Iff this statement is true, I am a banana. I could CFJ on it, if necessary. Per previously mentioned entirely constructivist arguments, we can conclude from the /existence/ of this statement that I am a banana. The absurdity of this argument demonstrates that Fool's scam failed.
Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 23:35 -0400, omd wrote: Per previously mentioned entirely constructivist arguments, we can conclude from the /existence/ of this statement that I am a banana. I think bananas count as biological, and you seem capable of communicating via email in English, so I don't see a problem. -- ais523
