Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Caste Cycling
On Monday 13 October 2008 08:10:48 am Benjamin Schultz wrote: 4. Caste changes will avoid promoting / demoting a player who paid for eir own demotion / promotion respectively within the four weeks prior to the caste change, unless the Rules require this change and there are no other options valid under the Rules. Probably simpler to use the old wording, but substitute possible and permissible for possible. 5. Caste changes will void promotion or demoting a player whose will avoid promotion There may be an unavoidable conceptual problem here. If you specify best as possible, then the contract could require you to act in a way that R2211 says you CAN must MUST NOT act. But, if you specify best as possible and permissible, even if you word it as required by the Rules, then R1742 allows another pledge to override the Policy by *requiring* you to act in a certain way. Perhaps you could say something like unless required by a Rule other than R1742. Pavitra
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5765-5778
On Monday 13 October 2008 11:59:46 am ais523 wrote: On Sat, 2008-10-11 at 09:36 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: 5777 O 1 1.0 ais523 Export AGAINST x 5 (Export Bootstraping [sic] should only trigger if the B proposal has the same text as the proposal that created EB) If you like the idea, could you reconsider that? The way proposals work in B, the first proposal called Export that could trigger the rule will be the one with the same text as Agoran proposal 5777. You could vote conditionally on the proposal texts being identical.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Alternate contestmaster-switching mechanisms
On Monday 13 October 2008 11:50:00 am ais523 wrote: On Sun, 2008-10-12 at 12:05 -0500, Ben Caplan wrote: I retract that proposal, and submit the following AI=1, II=1, entitled Creative contest switching v.2: This is an incredibly bad idea. Goethe deregistered over root's equity contest scam (which I was involved in); this would make the scam not only work, but written into the ruleset as a legal possibility. (I thought about exploiting it rather than telling everyone, but that would likely lead to chaos with nobody gaining more than anybody else.) Can you elaborate on how this might be exploited?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Alternate contestmaster-switching mechanisms
On Monday 13 October 2008 12:27:27 pm Taral wrote: Isn't it a rule that anyone can join a contest and that contest must award points fairly? I don't think so. There might be a proposal coming up to that effect.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Alternate contestmaster-switching mechanisms
On Monday 13 October 2008 01:01:44 pm comex wrote: On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: R2136 used to include the requirement that a contest be fair to all contestants in order to be a contest Among the problems with that was that a contest which ceased to be fair automatically ceased to be a contest, perhaps without anyone knowing (http://agora.qoid.us/rule/2136#406379). Reinstating the requirement pragmatically might be better received, but would probably break lots of things (is the RBoA fair to all contestants if persons with more crops can more easily get chits? etc...) Isn't Without 3 Objections, in effect, a pragmatic requirement to be fair?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Monday 13 October 2008 01:44:46 pm ais523 wrote: On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 15:36 -0500, Ben Caplan wrote: I intend, without 3 Objections, to set each of the following exchange rates: 8 crops55 Note that it's mostly me who's responsible for the bank's glut of 8 Crops; having two 8 Ranches, I've been generating them fast enough that they're one of the first things that I exchange. If you lower the rate too far my incentive to sell my 8 Crops will reduce. That's kind of part of the point; if 8 Crops are being deposited more than they're being withdrawn, then we're above fair market price. Ideally there should be neither glut nor drought. Note also that most of the rates are being dropped, so that 55 chits will be more expensive/valuable than 55 chits is now. Pavitra
DIS: Re: BUS: Farewell...?
On Monday 13 October 2008 01:59:43 pm ais523 wrote: I won't attach the message in question as evidence, just in case I end up getting Left in a Huff too; instead, I submit the following URL as evidence: http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2 008-October/014528.html. By what logic does include-by-reference work for judicial evidence, but not publication of Cantus Cygneus?
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] resolving Mad Scientist election
On Monday 13 October 2008 02:35:06 pm ais523 wrote: Wooble wrote: This message serves to initiate the Agoran Decision to choose the holder of the Mad Scientist office. The vote collector is the IADoP, and the eligible voters are the active players. This looks to me very like an attempt to initiate the decision, rather than intent to initiate the decision (which is what R107 requires). I think it's clear that the intent of the quoted message was to initiate the decision.
DIS: Re: BUS: The People's Bank of Agora -- like the RBoA, only communist!
On Monday 13 October 2008 06:00:30 pm Ian Kelly wrote: On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Elliott Hird wrote: 20. An Comrade can transfer one instance of an Eligible Currency to the PBA by announcement. Upon doing so the target currency's exchange rate goes down by 1, then a number of coins equal to the exchange rate of that currency are created in the transferrer's possession. This is referred to as a deposit. 21. An Comrade can transfer an amount of coins in eir possession equal to the specified target currency's exchange rate to the PBA, as long as the PBA has at least one instance of that currency. Upon doing so one instance of the target currency is transferred from the PBA to the Comrade who transferred the coins, then the target currency's exchange rate goes up by 1. This is referred to as a withdrawal. I join this contract. I deposit a 7 crop for 10 coins. I transfer 9 coins to the PBA to withdraw a 7 crop. I deposit a 7 crop for 10 coins. I transfer 9 coins to the PBA to withdraw a 7 crop. I deposit a 7 crop for 10 coins. I transfer 9 coins to the PBA to withdraw a 7 crop. I deposit a 7 crop for 10 coins. I transfer 9 coins to the PBA to withdraw a 7 crop. I deposit a 7 crop for 10 coins. I transfer 9 coins to the PBA to withdraw a 7 crop. I deposit a 7 crop for 10 coins. I transfer 9 coins to the PBA to withdraw a 7 crop. I deposit a 7 crop for 10 coins. I transfer 9 coins to the PBA to withdraw a 7 crop. I deposit a 7 crop for 10 coins. I transfer 9 coins to the PBA to withdraw a 7 crop. I deposit a 7 crop for 10 coins. I transfer 9 coins to the PBA to withdraw a 7 crop. I deposit a 7 crop for 10 coins. I transfer 9 coins to the PBA to withdraw a 7 crop. -root This doesn't do what you think. Each of these deposits only gets you 9 coins, so the whole post has no net effect except to make you an Comrade.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bank notes
On Sunday 12 October 2008 12:05:37 am Roger Hicks wrote: On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 17:57, Ben Caplan wrote: I withdraw 3 VP for 268 chits. 281 chits, I think, and you only have 115, so I'm considering this to fail. I'm pretty sure I have a bazillion chits, so this should succeed.
DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to make Werewolves a cross-nomic game
On Sunday 12 October 2008 02:00:39 pm Ed Murphy wrote: 1g) All communications pertaining to this contract are to be posted to at least one forum of each nomic in which it is a contract. This should probably specify public forum. Also: does are to be mean SHALL be or are ineffective unless? (Preferably the latter.) Pavitra
Re: DIS: Proto: The Commonwealth of Agora
On Sunday 12 October 2008 07:20:23 pm Ed Murphy wrote: Change the title of Rule 1950 to Voting on Senate Decisions, and amend it by replacing each instance of democratic decision with Senate decision, and by prepending this paragraph: Each first-class player represents a state in the Senate. Change the title of Rule 2156 to Voting on House Decisions, and amend it by replacing each instance of ordinary decision with House decision, and by prepending this paragraph: Each player represents a number of districts in the House. This could be taken to imply avatar theory. In general, I'm not a huge fan of this particular theme (I didn't like The Republic of Agora either). Alderman breaks the long-running Agoran tradition of gender neutrality (at least in the Rules proper -- certain contracts follow the B tradition). I'd rather call it City Elder or something. All in all, I'd much rather just rename ordinary to something like oligarchical or aristocratic. Pavitra
DIS: Re: BUS: Semipermanent markers
On Friday 10 October 2008 11:39:02 pm Taral wrote: On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend, without Objection, to amend The Note Exchange as follows: I object [Allowing transfer of Markers to oneself shouldn't be horribly abusable (as allowing transfer of Markers from oneself to others would be), and could make it easier to set up useful redemptions.] Nonsense. How do you think it's abusable? Anyone who can act on my behalf to transfer markers from emself to me can do much worse than that. ps. I am assuming that Marker transfer would only occur when the transferor had been offered a reasonable bribe to do so.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Subgame
On Saturday 11 October 2008 03:38:32 pm Elliott Hird wrote: On 11 Oct 2008, at 21:05, Ed Murphy wrote: H. Ambassador BobTHJ, I suggest flipping recognitions as follows: Normish - Friendly Nomic 217 - Neutral I agree, but with Normish - Neutral and Nomic 217 - Friendly. Normish is better-established, and has an Agoran face partnership. Objectively, Murphy's way makes more sense.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposal 5731
On Saturday 11 October 2008 07:36:05 pm Ed Murphy wrote: Taral wrote: On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I harvest 869 from these crops, the power of a recently amended rule (mutated to power 2), for 6 random crops. Yay for high seed ratios! Funny how this is coming up so often now. I bumped it from 1x to 3x ages ago because nobody was using it... now I'm wondering if that was too high... At 1x, you could spend 3-4 known crops to gain 1-3 random crops. Not hard to figure out why that didn't get used. At 3x, you can spend 3-4 known crops to gain 3-9 random crops. That seems reasonable to me. (Both the recent cases involved 3-digit rule numbers with power = 2.) Maybe 2 + 2*power would be better; random gain ranges from 4 to 8. This would be more useful at low powers, but not so useful as to be abusable. Oh yeah, and definitely floor(n*x) not n*floor(x).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposed AAA change
On Thursday 09 October 2008 11:36:38 pm Ian Kelly wrote: On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 09 October 2008 05:34:37 pm Ian Kelly wrote: 10. A farmer's milling queue is initially empty. A farmer (the miller) may add milling jobs to the end of any farmer's milling queue by announcement, with the consent of that farmer. At the beginning of each week, after Digit Ranches produce crops, each Mill processes and removes the first available milling job with a matching Operator, if any, from its owner's milling queue. I don't think this works the way you want. For example, if Alice adds a milling job to the end of Bob's milling queue, and Bob owns no mills of eir own, then the job will never be processed. Maybe like this 9. (...) used in the expression is destroyed from the baker's possession if possible, and then if two crops were so destroyed, one crop of the result is created in the baker's possession. 10. The milling queue is initially empty. A farmer (the miller) may add milling jobs to the end of the milling queue by announcement, optionally specifying a farmer (the baker); if no baker is specified, it defaults to the miller. At the beginning of each week, after Digit Ranches produce crops, each Mill processes and removes from the milling queue the first available milling job, if any, with a matching Operator and miller equal to the Mill's owner. I don't see what difference it makes. In your version, if the miller has no mills, the job still never gets processed. Presumably the miller is supposed to be the farmer whose mill is milling. In a mill rental (let Alice be renting eir mill to Bob), Alice's mill is consuming Bob's crops and giving the result to Bob. (This is effectively what people do nowadays, but with more steps.) In your version, if Alice adds a job to Bob's queue, it's still Bob's mill milling Bob's crops into Bob's possession. In mine, it's Alice's mill milling Bob's crops into Bob's possession. ps: I just found a small bug in my version, should specify that the baker has to consent. Maybe I don't really understand where you're going with this. Can you provide an imaginary transcript of an example rental? Here's mine. Alice: [a-b] SELL: rent (+ Mill) 1 VP Bob: [a-b] FILL: 3+4 (time passes; now is beginning of next week) (Alice's queue iterates. Bob loses one each of 3 and 4 crops, and gains a 7.)
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Russian Roulette - obligations.txt
On Friday 10 October 2008 03:23:01 pm Kerim Aydin wrote: On Fri, 10 Oct 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: On 10 Oct 2008, at 21:16, comex wrote: snip I initiate an equity case regarding Russian Roulette, parties: me, AFO, Embassy. It was clearly not envisioned that the text inside the zip would be revealed. You might think so... I cannot possibly comment. It might be less clear to someone who knows what the encrypted text *really* says: Russians SHALL NOT eat cake. In a timely fashion after joining, each Russian SHALL reveal the encrypted text to a non-Foreign forum, unless another Russian has already done so.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Russian Roulette - obligations.txt
On Friday 10 October 2008 03:49:32 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It might be less clear to someone who knows what the encrypted
text *really* says:
Russians SHALL NOT eat cake.
In a timely fashion after joining, each Russian SHALL reveal the
encrypted text to a non-Foreign forum, unless another Russian has
already done so.
Not long enough. The uncompressed obligations.txt file is 1006
bytes. Which means that if Murphy's post is accurate, then the
password is about 30 characters long if the file uses \n for
newline, or about half that if it uses \r\n.
Theoretically, it could include random noise as well, like this:
The following text has no effect:
{
ntaeouasnoediracd.u',ntbkhaenhkeaosnehjkr df20394u.hlrhrD .auk oaoeai
RCDNutd ,OARUDrdRDUNAtbTNJUAE rkcduNUJETD eoaua\ suaoedbnoae eona ue
tdeuoa Jntsaoedurcs,eubdoekantdkacdprcdprccabkr8,d.p9l0gp9g ioaiu ar
toenhduatneo antue oaduatne duacdeou nc.do.e urcdp rdhka. d,.pd i',.u
cndueoaird asuoe icdp.aercdaoaeou euo eu oauaeoip'dpy. cddcnsoaeu sns
uesdcraoiesctioaeuntdhaoneudcp'8drp,.rchoaeutnkd nto ksacud oeanhouc.
anotdaoesnd asoeudsrcaprcdhl.9p8idnch;itnparsda scr,r.dhpu'a. ieu eu4
pcrdaoeirsrc doaeu'3dhriupa.-skasncbdkpu rschbpk noaehsrdhrplirsc hia
}
(for some value of eona ue tdeuoa.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposed AAA change
On Friday 10 October 2008 04:19:52 pm Ian Kelly wrote: On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Ben Caplan wrote: Presumably the miller is supposed to be the farmer whose mill is milling. In a mill rental (let Alice be renting eir mill to Bob), Alice's mill is consuming Bob's crops and giving the result to Bob. (This is effectively what people do nowadays, but with more steps.) The miller is the farmer doing the milling, not necessarily the farmer who owns the mill where the milling is being done. This is indicated by the definition of miller in section 10. Oh, I see what you're doing now. Miller in your version means what baker means in mine. Yeah, that works. ... I like being able to mill at any time, though. I wonder if BobTHJ's can be made to work without funky side effects.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposed AAA change
On Friday 10 October 2008 09:05:52 am Roger Hicks wrote:
{
Once each week for each Operator, a farmer may mill by destroying
two crops e owns. E then forms a mathematical expression using the
values of those two crops and the value of the chosen Operator
exactly once each, and e evaluates the expression over the finite
field of integers modulo 11. If the result is a number, e gains
one Crop of the corresponding type for each Mill e owned at the
beginning of that week with the corresponding Operator.
}
What about:
{
Once each week, for each mill e owned at the beginning of that week, a
farmer may mill by specifying two crops e owns. E then forms a
mathematical expression using the values of those two crops and the
Operator of that mill exactly once each, and e evaluates the
expression over the finite field of integers modulo 11. If the
result is a number, e gains one Crop of the corresponding type.
}
Re: DIS: Russian Roulette - obligations.txt
On Friday 10 October 2008 04:40:18 pm Ed Murphy wrote: Only on ehird's end; it wouldn't prevent me from revealing the password (I'm not a party, only the AFO is). How would you find out the password unless someone (e.g., the AFO) illegally revealed it to you?
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposed AAA change
On Thursday 09 October 2008 05:34:37 pm Ian Kelly wrote: 10. A farmer's milling queue is initially empty. A farmer (the miller) may add milling jobs to the end of any farmer's milling queue by announcement, with the consent of that farmer. At the beginning of each week, after Digit Ranches produce crops, each Mill processes and removes the first available milling job with a matching Operator, if any, from its owner's milling queue. I don't think this works the way you want. For example, if Alice adds a milling job to the end of Bob's milling queue, and Bob owns no mills of eir own, then the job will never be processed. Maybe like this 9. (...) used in the expression is destroyed from the baker's possession if possible, and then if two crops were so destroyed, one crop of the result is created in the baker's possession. 10. The milling queue is initially empty. A farmer (the miller) may add milling jobs to the end of the milling queue by announcement, optionally specifying a farmer (the baker); if no baker is specified, it defaults to the miller. At the beginning of each week, after Digit Ranches produce crops, each Mill processes and removes from the milling queue the first available milling job, if any, with a matching Operator and miller equal to the Mill's owner.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Happy Birthday!
On Saturday 04 October 2008 01:07:11 pm Taral wrote: On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 5:52 AM, ehird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What comes next? o.o or O.O? O.O of course. Eww, little-endianness?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Breaking the rules
On Saturday 04 October 2008 10:13:57 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
On behalf of The Law-abiding Partnership:
{
The Law-abiding Partnership registers.
The Law-abiding Partnership claims, to Agora, that it is the
ambassador. }
An obvious breach of the contract, which we seem to have no means
of enforcing.
If it doesn't enforce itself, it is not a partnership. The rule
doesn't say that the partnership test is claim to devolve
responsibilities and fail it says devolve responsibilities.
As a recordkeepor I will not include this partnership as a person
until it proves that it does devolve responsibilities.
It requires its parties to ensure that it obeys the rules. Back before
Take It To Equity, the partners could be prosecuted for the
partnership's rule breaches.
I still thing TITE was a bad idea.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Friday 03 October 2008 02:24:08 pm Charles Reiss wrote: On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:17, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 15:45, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well... flaming bobba smurf. All right. Let's see what I've got here. FARMER 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X WRV Pavitra 8 5 612 7 11 2 (transactions) +7 -7-4 +1 -5 -7-11 7 1 1 5 6 72 I harvest the numbers of proposals 5710 and 5730. Pavitra Fails. You have no 0 crops (unless I'm missing something?) I think the message was supposed to indicate that Pavitra deposits 7 1 crops, 4 3 crops, 5 7 crops, 7 8 crops, and 11 9 crops, then withdraws 7 0 crops, and 1 4 crop. No, I forgot that my RBoA transactions were inside the don't do this wrapper, so I thought I had those crops unspent. Pavitra
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: How to win by bribery
On Wednesday 01 October 2008 12:53:00 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Hold on here. Now we get to the point where a legitimate communication is held up. Does this violate R101 participation rights? -Goethe On the other hand, in a case where the sender of the message didn't take the reasonable step of sending email from an address that was subscribed to the mailing lists, I don't think eir rights are being violated by bouncing the message. It's trivial to subscribe the new address to the list and of course e retains the right, if not the ability, to send from eir previously-subscribed address. ... Maybe. I believe the precedent is that the message counts iff it was made in a good faith attempt to communicate with the other list subscribers. Pavitra
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Wednesday 01 October 2008 03:20:04 pm Elliott Hird wrote: On 1 Oct 2008, at 20:54, Ed Murphy wrote: Make it a bit more grammar-specific and I'll support it for Mad Scientist. Heh, it wouldn't be able to do Monsterization atm, but I could definitely write one - detecting nouns shouldn't be too hard. ORLY? I believe it was decided that the most natural Monsterization of judgment was Monsteredict. Can you write a script to make that kind of analysis?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Wednesday 01 October 2008 05:01:41 pm Elliott Hird wrote: On 1 Oct 2008, at 22:35, Ben Caplan wrote: I believe it was decided that the most natural Monsterization of judgment was Monsteredict. Can you write a script to make that kind of analysis? Did I say it'd produce the most natural monsterization all the time? You did imply it would do an acceptable job as Mad Scientist. I don't think that's possible for a computer program.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: take away the monster's deputy badge
On Wednesday 01 October 2008 05:07:01 pm Ed Murphy wrote: Pavitra wrote: On Wednesday 01 October 2008 02:26:17 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote: I submit the following Proposal entitled No More Monster Deputy: In Rule 2193, remove: That's boring. [Makes fast and sudden deputisation a perk rather than a superpower.] Wait. What? Rather than allow the Monster to deputise recklessly (as is currently the case), my proposal restricts the Monster to wait until the officer has violated a deadline, just like normal deputisation. I left out requirements (c) and (d) from 2160 because they didn't seem necessary. I don't want to just take away Monstrous deputisation, because I think it's a cool and interesting power. It just needs to be weakened a little. I think requiring the Monster to wait for a time limit does that. (Note, specifically, that the Monster can't hijack the privileges of any office whose officer is punctual.) If that doesn't answer your question, then please restate it at somewhat greater length than Wait. What?, because I'm not entirely sure I see what you're getting at. Pavitra
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Wednesday 01 October 2008 09:18:24 pm Benjamin Schultz wrote: On Sep 30, 2008, at 7:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: CHAMPION BY: CARDS Goddess Eris, Goethe, Murphy, OscarMeyr, root MANIAC Craig, root PARADOX Goethe, Murphy, root, BobTHJ, ais523, ehird I just realized that root would have qualified for the patent title Groovy (for winning three different ways), if we hadn't repealed it prematurely. Is it worth bringing back? Totally, man.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5727-5730
On Tuesday 30 September 2008 10:53:00 pm Kerim Aydin wrote: On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Ben Caplan wrote: 5731 D 0 3.0 Goethe Loss of Privileges AGAINST. Still feels rough around the edges. How can something be rough that was part of Agora for at least 10 years? -G. If the fitted part is no longer fully compatible with the modern system? I don't know. It just doesn't feel right.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5708-5726
On Sunday 28 September 2008 08:40:45 am ihope wrote: Rule 36 states that Rule 4E83 is a synonym for Rule 83. Since we don't have a Rule 83, we're still safe. I'm pretty sure Rule 36 states that It Could Always Be Worse. http://encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Rules_Of_The_Internet (Not Safe For Work.)
DIS: Re: BUS: Three proposals
On Saturday 27 September 2008 01:07:26 am Ed Murphy wrote: Proposal: Judicial Declarations A judicial declaration published by a judge as required by the rules in conjunction with a judgement is self-ratifying, provided that that judgement remains in effect. Such a judgement may be inappropriate due to the content of this declaration, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. This sounds very easily abusable, considering the recent tradition of judicial corruption. If this passes, I think my Favor might turn out to have been a *very* good investment. Pavitra
DIS: Re: ?spam? BUS: Judgement in CFJ 2166
On Saturday 27 September 2008 11:04:50 am ais523 wrote: I intend, with 2 support, to appeal my own judgement of CFJ 2166, suggesting REMAND; that way I can judge all 3 CFJs together as an effectively linked assignment, rather than having to try to synchronise all the individual CFJs one appeal at a time. I support, as this seems sound reasoning. Pavitra
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Thursday 25 September 2008 04:37:45 pm Kerim Aydin wrote: Overall I think it's up to the officer (or contestmaster) recording the transactions to decide if it's straightforward and if it is, assume the conditional works as intended and if it's not straightforward, the officer should reject it and say why. This seems an extremely reasonable policy. H. SoA BobTHJ, did it work? Pavitra
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5708-5726
On Saturday 27 September 2008 06:20:41 pm comex wrote: We have no Rule 400 0, so I think we're safe. Interesting. I read 4E83 to mean 0x4E83, which would be R20099. So we're safe either way. Pavitra
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: why wait?
On Friday 26 September 2008 03:43:20 pm Ian Kelly wrote: I think you'd have a hard time justifying that a partnership without human intervention is a partnership. Didn't we discuss recently whether you can have a partnership that requires but not enables its members to ensure that it follows the rules?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Thursday 25 September 2008 01:03:46 pm Kerim Aydin wrote: 1. I do 1. 2. I do 2. 3. If 2 failed, I didn't do 1. It's very arguable if #3 actually, legally works. The simultaneous but sequential is no longer in the rules but is also kept by (recent) CFJ and a controversial series of them at best. I believe the way I structured my message avoids that retroactive-cancellation problem. I do apologize for the finicky conditional, but I really don't want to make a major transaction like that and end up losing most of my crops for no benefit.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2168-69 assigned to root
On Thursday 25 September 2008 03:04:51 pm Elliott Hird wrote: On 25 Sep 2008, at 20:55, Geoffrey Spear wrote: I believe R2200 was created in direct response to the original judgment in that case, almost specifically to allow us to consider Canada a nomic. Point: IRCNomic was renamed to Canada just after its peak of activity. Yes, but R2200 was created in consideration of the *other* Canada.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA Change
On Wednesday 24 September 2008 03:41:50 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In Section 7 remove:
{{
The owner of a Land MAY change its name by announcement.
}}
Perhaps someone will volunteer to keep an informal record of Land
names?
(I assume the problem is that renaming adds 50% to the number of
messages every time subsidization rolls around.)
I like named lands; how would it be if the SoA could name lands at
creation, and farmers can request specific names in advance?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA Change
On Thursday 25 September 2008 12:29:59 am I wrote: redundant Whoops, BobTHJ got to it first.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA Change
On Thursday 25 September 2008 12:31:43 am you wrote: On Thursday 25 September 2008 12:29:59 am I wrote: redundant Whoops, BobTHJ got to it first. Nope, it was Wooble. I AM A COMPLETE IDIOT
DIS: Re: BUS: why wait?
On Wednesday 24 September 2008 08:20:35 am Geoffrey Spear wrote: I recommend a sentence of EXILE with a tariff of 180 days. R1504 prescribes the middle of the tariff range... for severe rule breaches amounting to a breach of trust. The middle of the tariff range in this case is 90 days. Is what e did really *significantly more* severe than a severe rule breach[] amounting to a breach of trust?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More /dev/null stuff
On Tuesday 23 September 2008 11:51:34 am Ian Kelly wrote: On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 10:47 AM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 12:43 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I call for judgement on the statement If a non-pledge contract has no parties, it can be amended by unanimous consent of its parties. Trivially FALSE. It is impossible for no parties to give consent. If unanimous consent just means that every member of the set consents, then unanimous consent of no parties is trivially obtained. The problem in my view is that no party is able to specify what the change should be. The problem is this: does by unanimous consent of its parties mean by any party with the consent of all parties or by any person with the consent of all parties? Pavitra
Re: DIS: Proto-contract: Locations
On Saturday 20 September 2008 07:24:47 pm Ben Caplan wrote: I (do not, yet) agree to the following, become a cartographer, and become Cartographer-General : Comments? Anyone?
Re: DIS: Proto-contract: Locations
On Tuesday 23 September 2008 03:31:51 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Saturday 20 September 2008 07:24:47 pm Ben Caplan wrote: I (do not, yet) agree to the following, become a cartographer, and become Cartographer-General : Comments? Anyone? I'm a bit skeptical, if only because when Locations were rules-defined (and a lot less complicated than this), they didn't get used. I seem to remember that there wasn't as much structure to them back then. Locations were contracts, and required a nontrivial amount of creativity to (effectively) make just one. Here, I've tried to design a self-sufficiently interesting subgame. Maybe if it were a contest and you could win points that would help.
Re: DIS: Proto-contract: Locations
On Tuesday 23 September 2008 04:07:12 pm Ian Kelly wrote: Will this be a contest? Otherwise, I don't see any purpose. Looks like it, yeah. Adding score code now.
Re: DIS: Proto-contract: Locations
On Tuesday 23 September 2008 04:25:18 pm Ian Kelly wrote: It seems like it would be difficult starting out. In summary: capitols need to be defensible. You're right, of course. Do you think it would be helpful to start with more compasses -- say, twenty?
DIS: Re: BUS: test
On Saturday 20 September 2008 10:21:09 pm Ben Caplan wrote: This is a test message. Check the headers.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: test
On Tuesday 23 September 2008 06:21:38 pm Ian Kelly wrote: On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 9:21 PM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a test message. We have precedent that the content of the Subject header has no bearing on the effect of the message. I doubt that the X-Agora-Game-Action header would either. But the name of the header explicitly labels the accompanying text as an Agora game action.
Re: DIS: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5700-5707
On Tuesday 23 September 2008 07:46:51 pm Dvorak Herring wrote: I vote as follows: NttPF
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Is the Monster a person?
{{{
A person is an entity that has the general capacity to be
the subject of rights and obligations under the rules. }}}
I read the sentence as A
person is hereby defined to be an entity that has the general
capacity to be the subject of rights and obligations under the
rules.
I read it as A person is a type of entity, and has the general et
cetera.
Under your style of parsing, a sentence like
Points are a currency. (R2179)
would be interpreted as 'Points' is defined to mean a currency.
So I could create a pledge making myself recordkeepor of each of 100
different flavors of jellybean (each flavor its own currency), create
a jellybean of each flavor in my possession, and win by score.
Footnote: beware of relying on reductio ad absurdum in Agora; R217
means that occasionally the absurdity is true. You may actually be
right. But I hope not.
Pavitra
Re: DIS: Draft ruling in CFJ 2152
On Sunday 21 September 2008 10:06:10 am Benjamin Schultz wrote: On Sep 21, 2008, at 10:59 AM, Elliott Hird wrote: DISCHARGE. He could not have assigned them. Please elaborate on how the technical issue makes Discharge appropriate. E had *some* way of communicating with the Agoran community, as shown in the evidence. I don't see how merely being able to communicate with the community is sufficient. If e couldn't publish messages, e couldn't take game actions.
Re: DIS: Live-action in Agora
On Saturday 20 September 2008 05:52:52 pm Sgeo wrote: I remember that things seemed like they were occuring live when Olipro joined and I was trying for the Win by Extortion. What other events in Agoran history have had these sort of live-action events? I don't know about historical precedent, but I think it might be fun to create a fast-paced subgame to play at conventions, something like legislators meeting in session. (This might also be a good way to attract new players.)
Re: DIS: Live-action in Agora
On Sunday 21 September 2008 12:59:19 pm Ed Murphy wrote: Pavitra wrote: I don't know about historical precedent, but I think it might be fun to create a fast-paced subgame to play at conventions, something like legislators meeting in session. (This might also be a good way to attract new players.) Which conventions? (I attend one in the Los Angeles area that runs three times a year; I tried kicking off a F2F game last September using Suber's initial rules, but no one expressed interest.) I don't really know. Most likely the basic requirement is the number of Agorans in attendance (at least three, I think). I suspect a lot of the problem you had was that you tried to start a new nomic from scratch, using a well-known ruleset. Nomics, as far as I can tell, have a hard time starting up, before they become (1) established and active, and (2) culturally distinct from other nomics. A nomic with few players and no interesting subgame infrastructure has very little going for it. This is why I proposed a subgame: to bring Agora's pre-existing interest and weight to the gaming table.
Re: DIS: Re: ?spam? BUS: Emergency exit, part 2
On Sunday 21 September 2008 12:53:38 pm Kerim Aydin wrote: Now looking back, I think the committee never got around to actually awarding (or denying for that matter) the degree (that was when degree- awarding mechanisms were pretty cumbersome). -Goethe. Perhaps you should resubmit?
Re: DIS: Re: ?spam? BUS: Emergency exit, part 2
On Saturday 20 September 2008 08:19:44 pm Kerim Aydin wrote: Nice example, since the creation of the fountain was due to such a scam. It's called a ladder scam. This was the subject of my thesis, and I believe Andre's as well. IIRC I think I recommended at the time a tweak to R754 but I think we just accepted it as part of the game at the time. You know, a traditional part of nomic scams is *closing the loophole afterwards*.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2101 assigned to ais523
On Saturday 20 September 2008 08:13:45 pm Kerim Aydin wrote: On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, comex wrote: Is this the line to be drawn for such a strong term as explicit? Already very well and directly (almost identically) covered in CFJ 1290. -Goethe Reading the arguments on 1290, it seems that the consent was taken as being self-evidently implicit and not explicit, and the controversy was whether the rules at the time required consent to be explicit. H. Judge solublefish ruled that they did not. Now, however, we do require explicit, willful consent, so by the nature of the arguments in CFJ 1290, it would be more natural to say that equations are (strictly, were, but let's not get our tenses too confusing) not automatically binding.
Re: DIS: Re: ?spam? BUS: Emergency exit, part 2
On Saturday 20 September 2008 08:51:14 pm Kerim Aydin wrote: making that broader adjustment was, for some reasons I don't quite recall, the subject of some interesting discussion which never came around to an agreed-upon fix. -Goethe. Proto-proto: Make power ordinal rather than cardinal, and organize the ruleset by power. Occasionally we would have rules like rules below this one can be changed with AI = 2. Early (powerful) rules would include defining terms is secured.
Re: DIS: Re: ?spam? BUS: Emergency exit, part 2
On Saturday 20 September 2008 08:54:26 pm Kerim Aydin wrote: http://www.nomic.net/~nomicwiki/index.php/AgoraTheses doesn't list any thesis of yours. Where can it be found? Hrm, I don't know. It was about three computers ago on my end, the only other place it ended up was on the mailing list which afaik there's no accessible archive. -Goethe. Perhaps it's here? http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2003-January/000457.html
Re: DIS: Re: ?spam? BUS: Emergency exit, part 2
On Saturday 20 September 2008 08:05:42 pm comex wrote: Really, the Agoran power system is completely broken. Any high-power Rule that uses a term defined in a low-power Rule is potentially a conduit for a power escalation by a scamster, and often is. On Thursday 09 January 2003 05:49:54 pm Steve Gardner wrote: On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Ed Murphy wrote: In general, I do not believe it is possible to make an absolutely immutable Rule. Indeed, I believe Goethe's suggested Power-4 Rule can be defeated by the following Power-1 Rule: Except for this Rule, repeal is defined as the natural-language definition of butter. Except for this Rule, fnord is defined as the natural-language definition of repeal. One second after this Rule is created, another Rule is automatically created with the following text: Upon the creation of this Rule, Rule is hereby fnorded. To my mind, this is an example of 'amendment by stealth' of the kind discussed in CFJ 858. I think it conflicts with the Rules the meanings of whose terms it tries to change. H. CotC Murphy, would it be possible to get CFJ 858 into the database? Pavitra
Re: DIS: Re: ?spam? BUS: Emergency exit, part 2
On Saturday 20 September 2008 09:35:06 pm ihope wrote: On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 9:59 PM, Ben Caplan wrote: Proto-proto: Make power ordinal rather than cardinal, and organize the ruleset by power. Occasionally we would have rules like rules below this one can be changed with AI = 2. Early (powerful) rules would include defining terms is secured. What do you mean by ordinal rather than cardinal? If you mean the mathematical concept of ordinal numbers, rational numbers would really do just as well, as every countable ordinal number is order isomorphic to a set of rational numbers, not to mention that we won't have infinitely many rules any time soon anyway. I mean that we wouldn't have phrases like this rule takes precedence over all other rules that would interfere with scope, we wouldn't have separate rules for precedence within equal power and unequal power, and everything would be much simpler. Actually, it's equivalent to just never having any two rules be of equal power. Letting power be any (unused) rational number would work well, I think, except that the distribution of powers could get weirdly lumpy over time. Allowing the Rulekeepor to reassign power as long as e didn't change the comparative (ordinal) power of any two rules might be ok. Pavitra
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2086 and 2087
On Tuesday 16 September 2008 02:08:10 pm Charles Reiss wrote: They say that they happen at the time date-stamped on the message. This is not the same thing as simultaneously, since in the magical universe of the rules we can order actions that occur at the same instant. Incidentally, this is exactly what I was trying to get at with my judgments on CFJs 1975-6, which somehow got interpreted as a quantum uncertainty theory of timing. Pavitra
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A CFJ
On Tuesday 16 September 2008 03:55:31 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 2:16 PM, invalid invalid [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I call for judgement on the following issue:
{
I submitted a proposal in my recent post
}
-- Anonymous
UNDETERMINED. Who is to say that this anonymous poster is the same
as the previous one?
They come from the same email address.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Ambassador] Foreign Relations
On Tuesday 16 September 2008 04:06:15 pm Roger Hicks wrote: Nomic Preferred forum URI --- B Nomic mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] BlogNomic http://www.blognomic.com/ FRC mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Nomicapolis http://nomicapolis.net/wiki/Main_Page Nomicidehttp://community.livejournal.com/nomicide/ Nomicronmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] PTomic http://www.doctorwhoforum.com/showthread.php?goto=newpostt=159628 ParaNomic XPmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Dragonomic http://www.roleplaymarket.com/board.aspx?topicID=14739 We really should get around to recognizing the PNP sometime. And Normish, while we're at it.
DIS: Re: BUS: Kindness
On Wednesday 03 September 2008 03:36:00 pm comex wrote: I initiate an equity case with respect to the AAA. The state of affairs by which events have not proceeded as envisioned by the contract is that tusho has violated section 15 of the AAA agreement: 15. Creating proposals or CFJs for the clear and primary purpose of Harvesting the ID numbers assigned is a breach of this contract. To be honest, I'm not sure this creates an inequity in itself. If someone then tried to harvest the CFJs, then equity should take away their WRVs, but as it is I don't see what should be done equity-wise to fix the situation. Pavitra
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2077 assigned to comex
== CFJ 2077 Ivan Hope is a player Is there anyone who thinks this should not be judged FALSE? hmm... would not judging it FALSE make it TRUE? I think it ought not to be judged FALSE, but on moral grounds not Agoran-rules grounds. ihope hadn't really intended to deregister, despite posting a message doing so... OTOH, morally speaking, shouldn't ihope be made to bear the consequences of posting noise to the PF?
DIS: Re: BUS: I do.
On Wednesday 13 August 2008 12:03:46 am Quazie wrote: I stand. Ineffective, you cannot generally flip your own posture to standing. I register. Ineffective, you are already a player. I support. i object. Ineffective, it's not clear what you're supporting/objecting to. I I I lean. I sit. Probably effective. I cfj. i explode. Probably ineffective, as 'cfj' is followed by a period rather than a colon, 'i explode' seems to be a separate statement rather than the question of inquiry. I recuse. I vote. Probably ineffective due to lack of direct objects to transitive verbs. I hem. i haw. I hug. Probably effective. We have a tradition of respecting creative paraphrases like I lie down for I become supine. I submit. I propose. Probably ineffective, no direct object. I call. I judge. Ditto. i win. False, hence ineffective. I lose. This may be relevant to The Game, if it's still around. I inactive. Probably effective. Net effect: you become sitting, hugging, and inactive. I think. Pavitra
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I do.
On Wednesday 13 August 2008 12:38:12 pm Kerim Aydin wrote: On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Quazie wrote: [snip] TIATEOISIRIEIJIDISISISIRITILISIRITIPICIRICISIOIWIIILISICIEIIIFIR IVILIDIBISIEIUILILILISIMITIEISIRIBIHIHIHISIPIP-PIMIDIDIWINIAIWICIJIP IDIDICISIOICIDIDIWILICISIWIAISISIIISIPILIEIBAWRISIATHPAFALT. This is a/an (?) example of [I do a bunch of stuff] ... what's THPAFALT?
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Partnershpis can't do anything anymore
On Wednesday 13 August 2008 11:03:13 pm Ed Murphy wrote: define some useful label for X's role in the matter. Executor
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Rule 101!
On Tuesday 12 August 2008 11:19:26 am ais523 wrote: I think R101 is here to stay; it's also possible to claim that any change to the ruleset that makes it possible to repeal rule 101 is an indirect method of removing rights. (If there's a rule that allows repealing rule 101, that rule itself is removing rights, so by rule 101 it cannot have been created in the first place). Does the Town Fountain predate rule 101? If it does, we might have a chance... No, merely creating the possibility of removing rights does not in itself constitute such a removal. For similar reasons, it is possible to repeal R1698 without contradicting R1698.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Rule 101!
On Tuesday 12 August 2008 11:50:46 am you wrote: On Tuesday 12 August 2008 08:54:45 am Elliott Hird wrote: Repeal rule 101. I come off hold, as I want to be able to vote against this. Pavitra In particular, I think we should keep rights ii, iii, and viii, and probably also v, vii, and maybe vi.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Rule 101!
On Tuesday 12 August 2008 07:14:59 am Kerim Aydin wrote: On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: Proposal: Repeal Rule 101! Adoption index: 3. Word of advice: If you want this to work, make this power 3.1, enact a Rule (power 3.1) that says Rule 101 CAN be repealed by a Proposal of power 3.1. *Then* repeal Rule 101, then repeal the power 3.1 Rule (all in the same proposal). Otherwise it's trivial to claim that repealing Rule 101 removes rights, and R101 has precedence over the current rules governing rules repeal. -Goethe Okay, how about if we just delete the preamble from R101? We're not removing any rights, just the definition of the word right.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Werewolves has been stalled for nearly a month
On Tuesday 12 August 2008 04:56:10 pm Elliott Hird wrote: 2008/8/12 comex [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I nominate Quazie and Zefram. I second Zefram. And how. (I second/third Zefram.) tusho Note that one more false lynching will end the game in favor of the werewolves. Please only vote to lynch Zefram if you genuinely believe e is a werewolf, not merely out of revenge for inconvenient inactivity. That would be suicide. Pavitra
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Werewolves has been stalled for nearly a month
On Tuesday 12 August 2008 07:04:01 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Note that one more false lynching will end the game in favor of the werewolves. Please only vote to lynch Zefram if you genuinely believe e is a werewolf, not merely out of revenge for inconvenient inactivity. That would be suicide. Why, do the losers get deregistered too? No, they just lose the round and don't get any points. I meant Werewolf::suicide, not Agora::suicide.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 5668 - 5672
On Tuesday 12 August 2008 09:40:39 pm Ed Murphy wrote:
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
}{
Proposal 5670 (Democratic, AI=2, Interest=1) by Murphy, Zefram,
Michael But what is truth?
Zefram and Michael are co-authors of this proposal. Goethe is a
co-author of this proposal if and only if e publically accepts it
during its voting period.
Change the power of Rule 2149 (Truthfulness) to 2, and amend it to
read:
A person SHALL NOT make a public statement on a matter
relevant to the rules that is intended to mislead others as to its
truth (or, in the case of a public statement that one performs an
action, its effectiveness).
For the purpose of this rule:
a) Merely quoting a statement does not constitute making
that statement.
b) Any conditional clause or other qualifier attached to a
statement constitutes part of the statement; the nature
of the whole is what is significant.
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
This is ineffective, as Rule 2149 no longer exists.
(Normally Zefram would say this, but as e's abdicated eir
Rulekeeporship, someone else has to do it.)
Pavitra.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Dealing with the ihope issue.
On Monday 28 July 2008 03:06:35 pm Elliott Hird wrote: 2008/7/28 Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Logged or not, your IRC channel isn't a Public Forum. And you don't have to agree to contracts in a Public Forum. Resolving this probably will require a close reading of rule 2178. There would superficially appear to be a conflict in this case between its second-to-last and last paragraphs. For reference: If the text of a potential contract is published with a clear indication that the contract will be public when it forms, then it is identified as a public contract when it becomes a contract. Changes in the text or membership of a public contract do not become effective until they are published. Pavitra
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Dealing with the ihope issue.
On Monday 28 July 2008 03:14:11 pm I wrote:
Resolving this probably will require a close reading of rule 2178.
There would superficially appear to be a conflict in this case
between its second-to-last and last paragraphs.
For reference:
If the text of a potential contract is published with a clear
indication that the contract will be public when it forms, then
it is identified as a public contract when it becomes a
contract.
Changes in the text or membership of a public contract do not
become effective until they are published.
It seems to me that the last paragraph has no effect unless the text in
question is a public contract, which cannot be the case unless it is a
contract, which cannot be true unless it has two parties, which in
this case requires that ihope successfully became a party to it.
Thus, I see two possible interpretations of the situation:
(1) the membership of the contract did not change; the contract
came into being as a contract with the set of parties {Sgeo, ihope}.
(2) paradox: public contract - no unpublished changes - ihope not
party - not contract - not public contract - last paragraph of 2178
does not apply - ihope's agreement to contract was effective - two
parties - contract - public contract.
At first, I suspected that there might be two copies of the contract,
one public with only Sgeo as a party and one private with both Sgeo
and ihope, but upon closer examination I believe that the rule does
not support this. (In particular, the contract did not allow for
itself to be a pledge, so with only Sgeo as party it could not be a
contract and hence not a public contract.)
Pavitra
Re: DIS: CotC site update
On Wednesday 23 July 2008 06:01:27 pm comex wrote: Hmm... it would be nice if you could release some sort of periodic database dump for us to play with. Seconded.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Reformed Bank of Agora report
On Thursday 24 July 2008 09:25:08 pm ihope wrote: On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I try one more time, and then give up if i fail Without 3 objections I intend to chagne the RBOA contract as follows: Is to chagne a term of art I'm not aware of? Though to change is one possible interpretation, it's also an abbreviation of champagne, so this is ambiguous and therefore ineffective. AFAIK, champagne is not a verb. Hence change remains the only plausible interpretation.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Department of Corrections
On Saturday 19 July 2008 09:20:41 pm comex wrote:
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I submit the following proposal in reference to
http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/suspects.php:
Department of Corrections
AI: 1
II: 1
{
Upon the adoption of this proposal comex is awarded the patent
title Habitual Offender
}
But, but...
I've only been GUILTY six times.
Which is still more than anyone else.
DIS: This is getting ridiculous
H. Distributor Taral, how would you feel about establishing a separate agora-judicial list? Pavitra
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
Add the following to the end of section 8: An upgraded Digit Ranch produces 2 crops a week A downgraded Digit Ranch produces 1 crop every 2 weeks These may stack, i.e., an upgraded Digit Ranch actually produces 3 crops per week (1 for being a Digit Ranch, and 2 for being upgraded), and a downgraded Digit Ranch produces a total of 3 crops every 2 weeks. Pavitra
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5636-5639
On Monday 14 July 2008 08:40:02 am Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 5637 O1 1Quazie Agora is my conditional value I change my vote to ENDORSE Agora x4 I don't think this works; under no circumstances can a rule take effect before the votes on it are counted, so relying on a definition that would be created by a rule in a conditional vote should fail regardless of whether the rule actually passes. In the specific case of a definition (as opposed to a CAN), the proposal under vote may provide sufficient context for a local synonym.
Re: DIS: Protos on truth and identity
On Monday 14 July 2008 04:12:48 am Taral wrote: On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: c) A public statement that one performs an action is true if and only if one succeeds in performing that action by making that public statement, but violates this rule only if one believes it will definitely fail. This feels clunky. c) The announcement of action by which a person acts by announcement is true if and only if the specified action is POSSIBLE.
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA
On Monday 14 July 2008 10:30:52 am Roger Hicks wrote: I create a Digit Ranch (land #113) with a Seed of 5 and a WRV in the possession of Pavitra. I rename land #113 to Aphrodite's Grove.
Re: DIS: Protos on truth and identity
On Monday 14 July 2008 11:02:04 am Kerim Aydin wrote: On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Ben Caplan wrote: On Sunday 13 July 2008 11:43:28 pm Ed Murphy wrote: A public claim intended to mislead others (whether directly or indirectly) regarding one's identity constitutes a false statement, and SHOULD be severely punished. A person SHALL NOT make a public claim intended to mislead others, either directly or indirectly, regarding eir identity. [Less clunky, and allows infractions to be punished against a power-3 rule rather than a power-1 one.] Do you mean that any Rule containing a SHALL NOT can be punished at power-3 because it violates MMI? Has that interpretation been tested? No, R2170 (into which the paragraph in question is protoproposed to be inserted) is power-3.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: We all have our ehird moments
On Monday 14 July 2008 02:29:45 pm comex wrote: On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 3:27 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's not really that much of a stretch to let contracts do that stuff, especially considering the analogy with partnerships. In fact, if I'm blind, preventing me from delegating the responsibility to use email clients to a secretary or friend would infringe my right of participation in the fora. Unless you have a software screen reader.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's completely logical
On Monday 14 July 2008 05:51:06 pm Ian Kelly wrote: On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 13 July 2008 10:45:42 pm ihope wrote: Either the sky is always red or, if I do not hereby initiate an inquiry case on this sentence, then the sky is always green. (R v (~I = G)) Since ~G, it follows that I (ihope127 does in fact call said CFJ). Although ~R, (false v true) evaluates to true. TRUE. Your reasoning appears circular. You have to assume the statement to be true before you can determine that I follows from ~G. -root Oops. Let's try that again. Call the original statement S. [That is, let (S == (R v (~I = G))).] Since ~G, ((~I = G) = I). Then (S = (R v I)). Since ~R, it follows that ((R v I) = I). Hence (S = I). I think the sentence is effectively equivalent to I call for judgement on this statement. The precedent of CFJ 1903 may be relevant here. Pavitra
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2019a assigned to Wooble, avpx, Taral
On Monday 14 July 2008 06:09:59 pm Ian Kelly wrote: Seriously? In my experience, Default Justice is a curse, not a bonus. Perhaps we should have some way to abdicate prerogatives; they are theoretically supposed to be rewards, I think.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's completely logical
On Monday 14 July 2008 06:22:28 pm ihope wrote: On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As an aside, your statement could also be parsed as (I = (R ^ ~G)) ^ (~I = (~R ^ G)), which is false for any assignment of I. Assuming ^ is XOR and R and G are both false, that expression you devised is false for all I. The statement I actually made is true if and only if I initiated the CFJ. I assumed ^ meant AND, which also yields ((~R ^ ~G) = ~S).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Prerogatives imply choice
On Monday 14 July 2008 06:45:00 pm Quazie wrote: On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Proposal: Prerogatives imply choice (AI = 2, please) Amend Rule 2019 (Prerogatives) by replacing section b) with this text: b) Justiciar. Within three days after an appeal case comes to require a judge, the Justiciar CAN declare that case either hot or cold by announcement. If the Justiciar has not so declared, then the Clerk of the Courts SHALL NOT assign a panel to that case during this period. If the Justiciar has so declared, then the Clerk of the Courts SHALL assign a panel including (hot) or excluding (cold) the Justiciar, if possible. Upon the adoption of this proposal, the Prerogative of Justiciar is assigned to the person (if any) to whom the Prerogative of Default Justice was assigned immediately before the adoption of this proposal. In the event that it is neiter hot nor cold, it is room temperature. What is the protocal for a room temperature appeal? I assume that it need not include or exclude the Justiciar, but i just want to make sure. I think that in that case the normal protocol for panel assignment prevails. Can the Justiciar change eir mind? What happens with multiple declarations? Pavitra.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Prerogatives imply choice
On Monday 14 July 2008 06:57:43 pm ihope wrote: Unless the CotC did something stupid, like act on behalf of the Justiciar to say both. Which, in the Spirit of the Game, is not at all implausible.
Re: DIS: Werewolves status update
On Monday 14 July 2008 08:41:47 pm Ed Murphy wrote: I still need 3 more votes on whether to lynch Pavitra. May I suggest no. (I posted what I think are fairly reasonable arguments why to do so some time back.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A different kind of rotation
On Sunday 13 July 2008 10:00:48 am Benjamin Schultz wrote: The Airstrip One contract is giving contract-defined props to players who are not parties to the contract. Is this a good idea? Is this permissible? I don't see that it's fundamentally different from pens or chits.
DIS: Econ
Might be a good idea for the RBoA to set an exchange rate for pesos.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A different kind of rotation
On Sunday 13 July 2008 10:22:27 am comex wrote: On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Saturday 12 July 2008 10:05:36 pm Ben Caplan wrote: [More rotation.] Comments? Seems like a lot of work for the Disc Jockey. Probably. Note, though, that the only information actually required to be in eir report is the state and movement of respect switches.
Re: DIS: Lost message for CFJ 2053
On Sunday 13 July 2008 10:35:47 am Benjamin Schultz wrote: I'm having trouble finding the original message from ehird / tusho that initiated CFJ 2053, wherein e said I register; the agoranomic archive doesn't want to cooperate with me today, and my scroll-fu is coming up short. Could someone please help me out here? - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thursday 26 June 2008 01:25:40 pm tusho ? wrote: Well! I'd like to join this here Agoranomicgamething. May I? Good, that's nice of you. I join. -- tusho ? (questionmark)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Can you lie in a speech act?
On Sunday 13 July 2008 03:26:01 pm ais523 wrote: Clearly, I would only initiate a criminal CFJ against myself if I had in fact committed the crime in question; therefore, I intended to initiate the criminal CFJ if and only if my attempt to initiate the CFJ did not fail, like I claimed, i.e. I intended to initiate the CFJ if and only if I initiated the CFJ. Oh, and this little bit of confusion is designed as an exercise to show the absurdity of finding speech acts to be lying. Note that R2149 requires not only that you not believe your statement to be false, but that you believe it to be true. Deliberately ambiguous or paradoxical statements are punishable under Agoran perjury law.
Re: DIS: Proto: But what is truth?
On Sunday 13 July 2008 06:29:26 pm Kerim Aydin wrote: That being said, even taking on a more conservative role, the fact that something like this particular rule is pretty darn important to the tone of play but at power-1 means a veto is particularly apt. If something of this importance can't pass at a higher power, it shouldn't. To that end, the upcoming proposal should perhaps include a clause to power-up 2149.
