Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Emergency Distribution of Proposal 7568
On 28 Aug 2013, at 22:53, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Fool wrote: On 01/08/2013 1:34 PM, omd wrote: * I also attempt to distribute this with Chamber of each of Green, Red, and Purple (in that case, the proposal is separately Ordinary). What's that about? Nice colour scheme though. This was a reference to a rule from a few years ago: basically, your voting limit varied based on a rock-paper-scissors type interaction between your chamber and that of the proposal's author. Was that any good? I don't think I hung around long enough to see how that played out.
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] note to H. Judge Ienpw III
I don't mind becoming active to judge the case. I should be able to get to it this weekend. On 2013-08-27 4:04 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Tue, 27 Aug 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote: Appeal 3383a - REMAND without prejudice (Woggle) - no opinion (Walker, Wooble) - With no majority, as CotC, I cause the panel to judge REMAND without prejudice. Note that this puts the judgement back to H. Judge Ienpw III, despite em being Inactive. As e was not Unqualified when e was first assigned, I do not believe I can recuse or reassign. My apologies, I should have checked first and opted for Remit. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Emergency Distribution of Proposal 7568
Walker wrote: This was a reference to a rule from a few years ago: basically, your voting limit varied based on a rock-paper-scissors type interaction between your chamber and that of the proposal's author. Was that any good? I don't think I hung around long enough to see how that played out. I thought so, there was some actual strategy around it. *searches local archives* Lasted not quite a year; you proposed it in October 2009, G. repealed it in September 2010 (Proposal 6821) in favor of the List of Succession (for the Speakership, where the top N positions also had various powers associated with them).
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Emergency Distribution of Proposal 7568
On Thu, 29 Aug 2013, Ed Murphy wrote: Walker wrote: This was a reference to a rule from a few years ago: basically, your voting limit varied based on a rock-paper-scissors type interaction between your chamber and that of the proposal's author. Was that any good? I don't think I hung around long enough to see how that played out. I thought so, there was some actual strategy around it. *searches local archives* Lasted not quite a year; you proposed it in October 2009, G. repealed it in September 2010 (Proposal 6821) in favor of the List of Succession (for the Speakership, where the top N positions also had various powers associated with them). There was strategy, but it was rarely used - lots of apathy. In fact, it led to a mass-win when I submitted proposals of each color, each one saying everyone of color X wins, and no one cared enough to stop them all from passing, and everyone won.
DIS: nommit challenges you to a game of chess!
C-walker and I have been discussing the possibility of a nommit-Agora chess game as an initial attempt at internomic relations. Basically, each nomic would have a (part of a) rule that looks like this: The nommit-Agora chess game is played between those two nomics. Each nomic shall submit its move to the other within [time period] of receiving the other's last move. The winner of the game is awarded the Internomic Chess Trophy. Or something to that effect. Each nomic would have its own mechanism for deciding moves. nommit will likely have an informal discussion to reach consensus. C-walker suggested that Agora might wish to create an office. Anyway, nommit's been a bit slow lately, so I was hoping to propose something to nommit soon. Thoughts? - Ienpw III, nommitian Outlander-Speaker
Re: DIS: nommit challenges you to a game of chess!
wait would we discuss aech move as a group before submission or is there just one player who makes those decisions On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 1:04 PM, James Beirne james.m.bei...@gmail.comwrote: C-walker and I have been discussing the possibility of a nommit-Agora chess game as an initial attempt at internomic relations. Basically, each nomic would have a (part of a) rule that looks like this: The nommit-Agora chess game is played between those two nomics. Each nomic shall submit its move to the other within [time period] of receiving the other's last move. The winner of the game is awarded the Internomic Chess Trophy. Or something to that effect. Each nomic would have its own mechanism for deciding moves. nommit will likely have an informal discussion to reach consensus. C-walker suggested that Agora might wish to create an office. Anyway, nommit's been a bit slow lately, so I was hoping to propose something to nommit soon. Thoughts? - Ienpw III, nommitian Outlander-Speaker
Re: DIS: nommit challenges you to a game of chess!
I think it would be up to each nomic how to come up with its moves. On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Max Schutz maxschutz...@gmail.com wrote: wait would we discuss aech move as a group before submission or is there just one player who makes those decisions On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 1:04 PM, James Beirne james.m.bei...@gmail.com wrote: C-walker and I have been discussing the possibility of a nommit-Agora chess game as an initial attempt at internomic relations. Basically, each nomic would have a (part of a) rule that looks like this: The nommit-Agora chess game is played between those two nomics. Each nomic shall submit its move to the other within [time period] of receiving the other's last move. The winner of the game is awarded the Internomic Chess Trophy. Or something to that effect. Each nomic would have its own mechanism for deciding moves. nommit will likely have an informal discussion to reach consensus. C-walker suggested that Agora might wish to create an office. Anyway, nommit's been a bit slow lately, so I was hoping to propose something to nommit soon. Thoughts? - Ienpw III, nommitian Outlander-Speaker
DIS: Re: BUS: Intent
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote: I announce that it is my intent, assuming the absence of a trio (or greater) of objectors within the defined time period, to cause the Mutability Index to have a value of 10. I will object for something greater than LOLZ. (NttPF as I am not presently objecting.) -- OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: nommit challenges you to a game of chess!
I think it would be properly Agoran to have our move adopted by proposal. Though we would need some mechanism to resolve simultaneous proposals. -- OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: nommit challenges you to a game of chess!
I dunno, officer can do it with Agoran Consent seems pretty thoroughly Agoran to me. On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Benjamin Schultz ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com wrote: I think it would be properly Agoran to have our move adopted by proposal. Though we would need some mechanism to resolve simultaneous proposals. -- OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: nommit challenges you to a game of chess!
On Thu, 29 Aug 2013, Craig Daniel wrote: I dunno, officer can do it with Agoran Consent seems pretty thoroughly Agoran to me. A slight tweak to that. Any player can make a 'candidate move' by announcement. Candidate moves can be Supported or Objected to. After the usual Notice period following the first candidate move, the Officer submits the candidate move with the highest Consent index. Support/Objections from joint nommit/Agora players encouraged, for, you know, mind games.
Re: DIS: nommit challenges you to a game of chess!
On 2013-08-29 2:32 PM, Benjamin Schultz ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com wrote: I think it would be properly Agoran to have our move adopted by proposal. Though we would need some mechanism to resolve simultaneous proposals. -- OscarMeyr One potential problem with that would be if there was insufficient interest to meet quorum. Also, proposals can take weeks to pass, whereas nommit is unlikely to take more than a week for its moves. Though a proposal-like mechanism could work well and is what I was originally envisioning.
Re: DIS: nommit challenges you to a game of chess!
wait explain how the deuce they are faster than us at proposals a nomic is a nomic is a nomic isn't it On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 2:26 PM, James Beirne james.m.bei...@gmail.comwrote: On 2013-08-29 2:32 PM, Benjamin Schultz ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com wrote: I think it would be properly Agoran to have our move adopted by proposal. Though we would need some mechanism to resolve simultaneous proposals. -- OscarMeyr One potential problem with that would be if there was insufficient interest to meet quorum. Also, proposals can take weeks to pass, whereas nommit is unlikely to take more than a week for its moves. Though a proposal-like mechanism could work well and is what I was originally envisioning.
Re: DIS: nommit challenges you to a game of chess!
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Max Schutz maxschutz...@gmail.com wrote: wait explain how the deuce they are faster than us at proposals a nomic is a nomic is a nomic isn't it A nomic I've played (in meatspace, mind you) had a proposal turnaround time of about 30 seconds. The player read eir proposal aloud, people voted on it immediately and we moved on. Nomic isn't a specific game, really, it's a class of self-modifying games. You can get very different games (BlogNomic vs Agora vs B) which are still all nomics. ~ Roujo
Re: DIS: nommit challenges you to a game of chess!
FTR, nommit's turnaround time is under a week (voting begins every Friday). On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Jonathan Rouillard jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Max Schutz maxschutz...@gmail.com wrote: wait explain how the deuce they are faster than us at proposals a nomic is a nomic is a nomic isn't it A nomic I've played (in meatspace, mind you) had a proposal turnaround time of about 30 seconds. The player read eir proposal aloud, people voted on it immediately and we moved on. Nomic isn't a specific game, really, it's a class of self-modifying games. You can get very different games (BlogNomic vs Agora vs B) which are still all nomics. ~ Roujo
Re: DIS: nommit challenges you to a game of chess!
Right. You can also get very different gameplay starting from precisely the same initial rules - look at Agora vs. B in the era when its ruleset was derived from an Agoran one. That's because even if the rules start the same, they evolve - that's what makes it nomic! On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Jonathan Rouillard jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Max Schutz maxschutz...@gmail.com wrote: wait explain how the deuce they are faster than us at proposals a nomic is a nomic is a nomic isn't it A nomic I've played (in meatspace, mind you) had a proposal turnaround time of about 30 seconds. The player read eir proposal aloud, people voted on it immediately and we moved on. Nomic isn't a specific game, really, it's a class of self-modifying games. You can get very different games (BlogNomic vs Agora vs B) which are still all nomics. ~ Roujo
DIS: Re: BUS: Appeal 3383a
FWIW, I did actually consider them. I didn't address them because a) they were only briefly alluded to and did not change my opinion, and b) I was typing this on my phone. Is it necessary for a judge to address every argument in a case or only the ones they consider pertinent to their judgement? On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.comwrote: On 29 Aug 2013, at 21:10, James Beirne james.m.bei...@gmail.com wrote: I become active, make the following judgement, and then become inactive again. --- In ruling on the case originally I probably put too much weight on the opinions of a vocal few and misjudged Agoran tradition. I still feel Fool is guilty and deserving of a timeout, but I'll assign a much shorter sentence. GUILTY/TIMEOUT 6 days I intend to appeal this with two support, because the judge has failed to consider the arguments given by myself and various appellants regarding the question of guilt. (I don't really blame em, it was nice enough to become active to make the judgement.)
DIS: Re: BUS: I want in on some of this action
On Thu, 29 Aug 2013, Max Schutz wrote: I sit (I think that's what i do if i am interested in recieving ases) Yep. All you have to do now is wait.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I want in on some of this action
are there certain formats i need to use when doing this and don't just say read the rules visual impairement and asperger syndrome mix very interestingly On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Thu, 29 Aug 2013, Max Schutz wrote: I sit (I think that's what i do if i am interested in recieving ases) Yep. All you have to do now is wait.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I want in on some of this action
Nope! When you're assigned to a case, just post your judgement (TRUE, FALSE, or the other options) to the PF along with your arguments for the judgement. Exact format doesn't matter. On Thu, 29 Aug 2013, Max Schutz wrote: are there certain formats i need to use when doing this and don't just say read the rules visual impairement and asperger syndrome mix very interestingly On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Thu, 29 Aug 2013, Max Schutz wrote: I sit (I think that's what i do if i am interested in recieving ases) Yep. All you have to do now is wait.
