Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A Criminal Case
On 01/08/2013 12:23 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 12:18 AM, Max Schutzmaxschutz...@gmail.com wrote: sorry for being a pain but in lamens terms he tried to have us all deregistered and kicked is that it sorry my learning disability makes it a pain when there are a lot of words surrpounding a point Yes, but see Rule 101 and CFJ 2515 in particular. -scshunt The example given on CFJ 2515 is to bring Agora into sufficient disrepute that playing nomic was made illegal in a real-world country I look forward to hearing how what I've done resembles that :) Now even the old R101 didn't have anything about a right to register or remain registered. And if there was some other Agoran precedent for this right, presumably one of my detractors would have said so. Nor is there any common-sense right that can be appealed to. In ordinary terms, this is just called elimination, or more simply, losing, and that's a perfectly routine game occurance.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A Criminal Case
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote: Nor is there any common-sense right that can be appealed to. In ordinary terms, this is just called elimination, or more simply, losing, and that's a perfectly routine game occurance. Not in Agora. While losing is mostly equivalent to being eliminated in most games, here losing conditions only prevent you from winning - not playing. ~ Roujo
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A Criminal Case
On 01/08/2013 8:40 AM, Jonathan Rouillard wrote: On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Foolfool1...@gmail.com wrote: Nor is there any common-sense right that can be appealed to. In ordinary terms, this is just called elimination, or more simply, losing, and that's a perfectly routine game occurance. Not in Agora. While losing is mostly equivalent to being eliminated in most games, here losing conditions only prevent you from winning - not playing. Though I was specifically referring to ordinary meaning. For Agora, see the paragraphs preceding that.
DIS: Re: BUS: Question for Platonists (not about dictators)
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 22:45 -0400, Fool wrote: I submit the following proposal: === Agora pulls a B (AI=3.1, PF=0, disi.) In rule 1551 (Ratification, Power=3.1), replace the sentence: Ratifying a public document is secured. with: Ratifying a public document is secured with Power threshold 3. [ Question for Platonists: When was the last time anything actually ratified? ] This badly needs fixing in both the scam-succeeded and scam-failed gamestates, for us to have much of a chance of being able to reconstruct. The best option is probably for the Promotor to resign so that Fool can assume it in both gamestates and distribute the proposal. Alternately, both Promotors can purport to distribute it with the same number at about the same time.
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3372 assigned to OscarMeyr
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Jonathan Rouillard jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote: Disclaimer: This fails if I'm not the CotC at the moment. Detail: http://cotc.psychose.ca/viewcase.php?cfj=3372 == CFJ 3372 == Announcing in Agora-Business the creation of a promise that, upon being cashed, causes the player cashing said promise to break a rule, does not cause the creator of said promise to violate R2394, nor does it cause the creator of said promise to violate R2394 upon the cashing of said promise. Caller: lindar Judge: OscarMeyr Judgement: History: Called by lindar: 09 Jul 2013 16:10:36 GMT Assigned to arkestra: 15 Jul 2013 17:40:48 GMT arkestra recused: 21 Jul 2013 15:16:57 GMT Assigned to Yally: 23 Jul 2013 17:27:54 GMT Yally recused: 24 Jul 2013 06:14:22 GMT Assigned to OscarMeyr: (as of this message) Gratuitous Arguments by omd: It is the casher that would be the Executor, not the creator. DRAFT: TRUE, as per omd's argument. Rule 2394/0 (Power=1) Crime by Proxy Being the Executor of a message in which another person commits the Class-N Crime of X (for any values of N and X) is the Class-N Crime of X By Proxy -- OscarMeyr who is going for speed and brevity in CFJ decisions.
DIS: Re: BUS: A Criminal Case
on the grounds that i am understanding correctly I do favor this case On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Benjamin Schultz ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.cawrote: I submit a criminal case, barring the Serious Party, alleging that Fool violated Rule 101 by failing to treat Agora right good forever, by purporting to deregister all other players and subsequently lock them out of the game. -scshunt I favor this case. -- OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote: As I said right off the bat, I didn't CFJ a free-floating version of Curry's paradox. And that is basically why. Because then you only have to argue some alternate logic for free-floating statements. Typically, for example, just ignore it and say it's meaningless or something. The paradox CFJs are good evidence that we try to avoid having alternate logic for free-floating statements; in any case, otherwise, we could by the same token call the conditions of your promises meaningless.
DIS: Re: BUS: Question for Platonists (not about dictators)
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote: Agora pulls a B (AI=3.1, PF=0, disi.) In rule 1551 (Ratification, Power=3.1), replace the sentence: Ratifying a public document is secured. with: Ratifying a public document is secured with Power threshold 3. Oh, wow, this is REALLY bad. The known effects of SLR ratifications in the last three years aren't too bad, but without ratification, economic misreporting could have affected voting limits, causing resolution to fail, and neither the economic report nor voting results would have self-ratified.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Question for Platonists (not about dictators)
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 12:40 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote: Agora pulls a B (AI=3.1, PF=0, disi.) In rule 1551 (Ratification, Power=3.1), replace the sentence: Ratifying a public document is secured. with: Ratifying a public document is secured with Power threshold 3. Oh, wow, this is REALLY bad. The known effects of SLR ratifications in the last three years aren't too bad, but without ratification, economic misreporting could have affected voting limits, causing resolution to fail, and neither the economic report nor voting results would have self-ratified. At least I HAVE been a player all along! -scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Emergency Distribution of Proposal 7568
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:34 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: I assume Promotor, just in case. I hereby distribute the following proposal, initiating the Agoran Decision of whether to adopt it. For this decision, the eligible voters are the active first-class players at the time of this distribution, the vote collector is the Assessor, and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote). (The above should be unambiguous.) Quorum is unknown, but might be 8, so please vote. /!\ Please explicitly vote once (FOR*1) on this proposal so that there is no ambiguity with voting limits. /!\ NUM AI PF C AUTHOR TITLE 7568 30 O omd, etc. Agora pulls a B + some ratifications FOR * 1. -scshunt Fool, can you please distribute this in your purported gamestate as well and adopt it? -scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: publicity
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Geoffrey Spear woo...@nomictools.com wrote: Wooble, your alternate-reality Registrar. This is for the Switchy interpretation, not simply ratification failing, right?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: publicity
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:45 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Geoffrey Spear woo...@nomictools.com wrote: Wooble, your alternate-reality Registrar. This is for the Switchy interpretation, not simply ratification failing, right? Yes, although honestly if no one in 2011 believed that switches have their default value when they are created meant that switches have their default value when they're created, I don't know why I'm bothering now except it's a delightfully confusing time to do it. -- Wooble
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7548-7564
I need a little more intel on the red tape humbug and kirby proposal On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote: I vote: 7548 10 O Ienpw IIIStandardized election days FOR (this is unambiguous enough for my taste) 7549 2 25 O Walker Recruitment Sanity FOR 7550 30 O omd Democratic Democracy Only PRESENT 7551 20 O omd Ministry fix and buff FOR (there is no Rule 412 (Government), but this reference is clearly unambiguous) 7552 20 O omd Freshdated FOR 7553 3 20 O omd Remove useless vote protection PRESENT 7554 30 O omd Trading card cleanup FOR 7555 3 65 O omd Self-ratification, victory, office changes NO VOTE 7556 10 O omd Kirby I AGAINST 7557 10 O omd too extraordinary PRESENT 7558 3 30 O Walker Walker's excellent* Agoran red-tape .. removal proposal** FOR 7559 3 30 O Walker humbug PRESENT 7561 10 O Machiavelli 沖縄の線の修理 FOR 7563 10 O omd Clarify inaccuracy ban FOR 7564 30 O omd The Logic that Never Was AGAINST ―Machiavelli
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Question for Platonists (not about dictators)
On 1 Aug 2013 18:31, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 12:40 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote: Agora pulls a B (AI=3.1, PF=0, disi.) In rule 1551 (Ratification, Power=3.1), replace the sentence: Ratifying a public document is secured. with: Ratifying a public document is secured with Power threshold 3. Oh, wow, this is REALLY bad. The known effects of SLR ratifications in the last three years aren't too bad, but without ratification, economic misreporting could have affected voting limits, causing resolution to fail, and neither the economic report nor voting results would have self-ratified. At least I HAVE been a player all along! And omd's proposal will ratify the ratifications of your registration :)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7548-7564
On 1 Aug 2013 19:35, Max Schutz maxschutz...@gmail.com wrote: I need a little more intel on the red tape humbug and kirby proposal FOR, AGAINST and AGAINST respectively. There's a trick where you convert the proposal text into a folded string which shows you the correct vote. I'll show you sometime.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7548-7564
ok i must know less about nomic than i thought i didn't know there was a correct and incorrect vote On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.comwrote: On 1 Aug 2013 19:35, Max Schutz maxschutz...@gmail.com wrote: I need a little more intel on the red tape humbug and kirby proposal FOR, AGAINST and AGAINST respectively. There's a trick where you convert the proposal text into a folded string which shows you the correct vote. I'll show you sometime.
Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians
On Jul 29, 2013, at 8:13 PM, Fool wrote: You're right, intuitionistic logic is too weird. Heck no. Classical logic is weird. But classical logic is the system obeyed by truth-bearing statements! —Of course, who cares about truth-bearing statements, anyway Machiavelli
