Re: DIS: Proto: Abercrombie and Fitch
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: b) Each week, the top three Farmers CAN and SHALL (in order, without repetition among that week's selections) specify exactly one role that will be in play during the following week. At the beginning of each week, all roles cease to be in play, then the roles specified during the previous week come to be in play. In the context of a role, the privileged Farmer is the Farmer who caused it to be in play. They have to specify three distinct roles, presumably. -root
Re: DIS: Shall we play a game?
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Quazie quazieno...@gmail.com wrote: The last card game had open hands and worked well I think. I like the idea of random assets that you gain sparsely that have the power to do various things. I've been playing a lot of Innovation lately: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/63888/innovation Might be interesting to try to adapt it for Agora. To avoid another unmitigated disaster, I would suggest that the card effects should not be so heavily integrated with the rules that the game depends on them to function; they need to be viewed as optional. -root
Re: DIS: Proto: Space Alert
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: At any time during the journey may he create a Threat by specifying the following: At any time may be a bit generous. The Enemy could watch what the players do and then submit threats at 23:55 specially designed to avoid what the players have done that day. I would suggest that the Enemy be allowed to announce new threats at any time, which are not actually created until the last step of the daily update. This is done by paying a number of Threat Points equal to the following formula: H+|d|+e+a+s+10-|S-p|, where S is the current position of the Shuttle. It must be positioned between the two wormholes and cannot have the same starting position as the Shuttle. Minimum zero? iv) If any two objects have the same position, they collide. If any object collides with a wormhole, it disappears. Threats that disappear this way generate Threat Points equal to their current cost, which are awarded to the Enemy. This seems like it could be abused by creating cheap, far-distant threats that exist for the sole purpose of running away and being dumped into a wormhole to generate threat points. Does this make sense? Is it too much to keep track of? Do we want this kind of gameplay, even if it is/gets streamlined enough? Yes, it's a rip-off from Space Alert, but enough people have not played that game to make that fact a point in its favour: Space Alert gameplay deserves to be experienced. The turbo seems too powerful. As written, 8 players could complete a 10-distance journey in less than a day by recharging three times and then jamming the turbo. The threats wouldn't even get a chance to attack. Perhaps limit each button to being pressed once per day, scaling for number of active players? Regarding whether there is too much to keep track of, one of the best aspects of the board game is that there is supposed to be to much to keep track of. You can never be sure exactly what the effect of your action will be because you don't really know what the current state of the ship is -- it might even have been destroyed already and you just don't know it yet. Perhaps a way to help achieve this would be to implement partial secrecy of actions -- actions must be sent privately to the Ship Computor and not publicly announced, and during periods of Enemy-imposed radio silence they may not even be discussed. Anyway, I could be talked into registering in order to play. It even makes me want to revive my Battlestar Galactica proto... -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2786 assigned to G.
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Currently, the rules preclude /dev/null from being a person, agreements are not defined (only roughly alluded to in R101). /dev/null does not fit the definition of a nomic for foreign relations (these days, that would allow Claustronomic to be recognized). Thus it is not an Agoran defined entity, and has no independent existence, either. Aw. Frankly, I'm surprised it stuck around as long as it did. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not All Bad
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:34 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:19 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: If anyone else wants to be Dealor, go ahead. A scam like you propose is a serious breach of trust; I for one would not worry about keeping an office but focus on not being exiled. Forging email headers or creating false identities in order to cheat is a serious breach of trust. Kicking everyone else out of the game in order to establish a dictatorship is just part of playing nomic. Agora's longevity has created an odd meta-rule that goes something like Thou shalt not destroy Agora, which ironically robs Agora of some of its nomicness. -root
DIS: Agora: the Movie
http://agorathemovie.com/ Strangely, it doesn't seem to cover the Mousetrap or any of Agora's other defining moments. -root
Re: DIS: A short eulogy for a Python script
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:05 AM, ais523callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Incidentally, this sort of thing is the reason that nowadays I set my editors to save backups in a completely different directory to the actual file, although it wouldn't have helped in this case. This sort of thing is the main reason I use a VCS running on an entirely separate system. -root
Re: DIS: Bank with automatic price adjustments The Goods style?
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Geoffrey Speargeoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Elliott Hirdpenguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote: 2009/8/19 Sgeo sgeos...@gmail.com: The system used by the guild The Goods in A Tale In The Desert is described in http://wiki.atitd.net/tale3/Guilds/The_Goods/FAQ/The_System . How would a bank based on such a system work out in Agora? Involves the same player-correction as the PBA. ...and so relies on the faulty assumption that people care enough about imaginary scarce resources to take the sort of actions needed to make a free market actually work. The utility of any asset gain in Agora is usually not worth the effort it takes to work out how to maximize your assets. It's often not even worth the effort of composing the email... -root
Re: DIS: What is wrong with you all?
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote: In my estimation, the primary cause of the recent lull is not Cards in and of itself but it's poor execution. We adopted a card proposal that was broken (half the cards did not initially work) and two of the primary recordkeepors for cards were vacant/inactive. Proposals are in voting now to correct the errors with the cards, and Grand Poobah has already been replaced. The current state of all cards can be found on my web interface at http://nomic.bob-space.com/agoralog.aspx (note: I've put a lot of work into making this a usable resourceplease use it!). You could equally well be describing the last time we tried cards. Some cards didn't have the power to do what they described. The initial recordkeepor (Wes, who also authored the cards proposal) quickly vanished. G. took over and did an outstanding job, but I think the office eventually wore em down as well. Cards may be an abstraction, yes, but a highly logical one. Most everyone has played a card game before and understands the basic concepts of how cards work. Any new player attempting to grok the ruleset will see terms like Cards, Deck, Hand and immediately - intuitively - understand the basics of how they work. To a new player it actually brings some familiarity and logic to what would otherwise be a jumbled mess of rules. Sure, if you mean cards with names like Ace of Spades or Seven of Hearts. Most people aren't familiar with cards that have actual text printed on them (or worse -- loosely associated with them and needing to be looked up). I have enough trouble just getting non-gamers to try Dominion or Guillotine, and those are both pretty light games apart from having text on the cards. Perhaps the transition is more natural for nomic enthusiasts, though. Also, the abstraction leaks. In a real card game, much of the point of the cards is to provide hidden information -- hence the identical backs. In fact, a person I know has designed a line of card games that make use of doubly sided cards, and yet the cards still introduce hidden information. A physical game without hidden information typically does not use cards as components in the first place. In Agora, hidden information is hard to do, so we don't bother. To a certain extent, this defeats the purpose and makes the cards less interesting. Where is the challenge in playing a powerful card if I know exactly which other players are holding onto the counter for it? Ha! Our decks our superior they don't even need shuffled. And I can deal 10,000 cards via automated mechanism in the amount of time it would take someone to deal one physical card. So when one needs to draw a card and the deck is empty, one can just reach over, shuffle the discard pile, and draw one? No, one has to wait on the recordkeeper to push the button, or rely on a set of magic contracts that introduce additional complexity. A player with a physical hand of cards can easily see, at any time, what cards e has. Again, I refer to http://nomic.bob-space.com/agoralog.aspx Assuming it's up-to-date. -root
Re: DIS: What is wrong with you all?
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote: This can be accomplished (without limiting the powers available) by assigning multiple limited use powers to a single card. Hm. Anybody up for dice? -root
DIS: Re: OFF: Salutations!
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Kenner Gordonkenner...@gmail.com wrote: *** You have died *** Would you like to RESTART, REPLY to this e-mail, or QUIT? RESTART
DIS: Re: BUS: Leaving
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: -Tiger, who also did away with the Geo. Mean since e didn't know what it meant. It's just a fancy name for the square root of the product. The reason for it is that the product has the annoying property of increasing quadratically as points are gained. Geometric mean converts that to an easier-to-grok linear scale. Thanks for covering for my lapse in recordkeeping. -root
DIS: Stepping down
Is anybody willing to take over my offices? I just don't seem to have enough time for Agora any more. -root
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Stepping down
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 7:12 AM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 06:34, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 2:59 AM, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote: Is anybody willing to take over my offices? I just don't seem to have enough time for Agora any more. I nominate Sgeo as Herald. I nominate BobTHJ as Scorekeepor. I conditionally accept this nomination if the Scorekeepor publishes a report prior to the end of the nomination period. Thanks, I'll make an effort to get one out. It's terribly backlogged, though. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Deputization intent
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Create a new power-1 rule reading as follows:
{{
The Herald SHALL, as soon as possible after the enactment of this
rule, initiate an Agoran Decision to award ais523 a degree for eir
thesis on the ruleset, as specified in rule 1367. When e does so,
e CAN and SHALL cause this rule to repeal itself in the same
message.
}}
I intend to deputize for Herald to initiate this Agoran Decision and to
repeal that rule.
Oh, I missed that. Why does the current ruleset not include the
quoted rule? It contains the other effects of R6257.
-root
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2482 remanded to ais523 by Goethe (AFFIRM), Pavitra (AFFIRM), Wooble (REASSIGN), coppro (REASSIGN)
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Goethe moves to AFFIRM: 05 May 2009 00:38:55 GMT Pavitra moves to AFFIRM: 05 May 2009 04:35:03 GMT Wooble moves to REASSIGN: 05 May 2009 12:41:41 GMT coppro moves to REASSIGN: 11 May 2009 14:06:50 GMT root moves to REMAND: 12 May 2009 00:03:00 GMT Final decision (REMAND): 12 May 2009 00:03:00 GMT I realize this is entirely my fault, but that's just silly. -root
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2482 remanded to ais523 by Goethe (AFFIRM), Pavitra (AFFIRM), Wooble (REASSIGN), coppro (REASSIGN)
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: As noted previously, REMAND is as reasonable a way to punt as any if the panel fails to produce a majority decision. This assumes one subscribes to the theory that punting is reasonable to begin with. -root
Re: DIS: Proto: Canon
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote: Proto: Canon Add the following text to some rule or another: Canon is a player switch tracked by the Conductor. The possible values of Canon are the set of all finite-length sequences of pitches. The default value is the empty sequence. A player CAN flip eir Canon by announcement. At the beginning of each month, the Key of each player with a non-empty Canon is flipped to the first pitch of eir Canon, and eir Canon is then flipped to the sequence obtained by rotating the first pitch of eir Canon to the end. By the way, I don't intend to actually propose this; I just thought it was a cute idea. If anybody wants to claim it in order to tweak / propose it, feel free. -root
Re: DIS: [IADoP] A Quick Poll
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: Or perhaps I could continue to distribute them as soon as possible, but also including a summary of all ongoing elections in my report. I'm more likely to vote if they're in batches, especially since I'm usually too lazy to actually read the report unless I have an immediate need for the information. -root
DIS: Proto-contest: Red November
Second draft. I'll start the process of making this an actual contract in a couple days if there are no further comments. 1. This is a public contract called Red November. This contract is intended to be a contest. The contestmaster CAN add axes to this contract by announcement. The contestmaster CAN by annonuncement remove any axis along which this contest neither awards nor revokes points. 2. A contestant to this contract who is currently involved in an ongoing game is known as a gnome. Within this contract, the phrase on the double means within 48 hours. 3. Any player CAN join this contract by announcement. Any contestant who is not a gnome CAN leave this contract by announcement. 4. Whenever this contract is a contest, no game is ongoing, and this contract has at least three contestants, the contestmaster CAN start a new game. 5. To start a new game, the contestmaster selects three to eight contestants, randomly assigns each a starting location within the experimental gnomish submarine BFGS Red November, and awards two randomly drawn starting items to each. E then announces each gnome's location, as well as the time remaining to each gnome (as laid out on the game board, see appendices). This announcement begins a game. 6. When the contestmaster awards a randomly drawn item to a gnome, e SHALL inform the gnome of the identity of the item on the double. The contestmaster SHALL NOT reveal any gnome's inventory to anyone except as required by this contract. 7. Each gnome has an intoxication level, an integer from 0 to 4, inclusive. All gnomes begin the game at 0 intoxication. Each time a gnome uses a grog item, eir intoxication increases by one, to a maximum of 4. Each time a gnome uses a coffee item, eir intoxication decreases by two, to a minimum of 0. 8. The heat, pressure, and asphyxiation disaster tracks are integers from 1 to 10, inclusive, starting the game at 1. These tracks can be advanced by events drawn throughout the game. If any of these tracks reaches 10, the game is over, as described later. When one of these tracks is reset, if the value is in the range 1-5, it is set to 1; if in the range 6-9, it is set to 5. 9. Any gnome with more than zero minutes remaining CAN take a turn by announcement, provided that all turns previously taken in the same game have been fully resolved by the contestmaster. A turn consists of a sequence of movement, followed by one action. A gnome can also use items at any point in eir turn; once used, an item is lost. Any time spent as required by this contract in the course of a turn is deducted from the gnome's remaining time. A gnome cannot spend more time in a turn than e has remaining. If a gnome announces a turn that is in any way invalid or incomplete, then the turn is entirely without effect. 10. A gnome's sequence of movement consists of zero or more iterations of the following steps: a. Spend one minute to open an unblocked hatch attached to the room the gnome is in. b. If one of the rooms connected by the open hatch is at high water, and the other has no water, then water equalizes between the two rooms; both become at low water. If the room that had no water was on fire, the fire is extinguished. c. Optionally enter a room or exit the sub through the opened hatch. To exit the sub, or to enter a room at low water, one minute must be spent. Additionally, to exit the sub the gnome must have used an aqualung in the current turn. Rooms at high water cannot be entered. A room that is on fire can be entered only if the gnome has used a grog or fire extinguisher item in the current turn. d. The hatch automatically closes. 11. The action taken by a gnome during a turn must be one of the following: a. Unblock a blocked hatch connected to the room. b. Extinguish a fire in the room. c. Pump low water out of the room. d. In room 1, fix the engine. If successful, this resets the pressure disaster track and prevents all Crushed! timed destruction events at the gnome's current time or later. e. In room 2, fix the oxygen pumps. If successful, this resets the asphyxiation disaster track and prevents all Asphyxiated! timed destruction events at the gnome's current time or later. f. In room 4, fix the reactor. If successful, this resets the heat disaster track. g. In room 7, stop a missile launch. If successful, this prevents all Missiles Launched! timed destruction events at the gnome's current time or later. h. Outside the sub, kill a kraken threatening the sub. If successful, this prevents all Devoured by Kraken! timed destruction events at the gnome's current time or later. i. In room 8, spend one to four minutes to gain
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Gratuitous reply:
I see what you're saying, and that this is generally what R1482
intends, but I have a hard time saying that a claim This rule takes
precedence over matters of X is not a direct specification of
a means of determining precedence. It literally and directly is.
It specifies the means if the matter is X, defer to this rule.
Linguistically, I just don't see a dividing lines between a claim
of precedence and a specification of a means of determining
precedence. Both can be broad or narrow, both say x has
precedence over y under circumstances z, I don't see that any
particular grammar or phraseology differentiates them.
I don't buy that. The rules are self-empowered, per R2141: A rule is
a type of instrument with the capacity to govern the game generally.
Suppose I were to publish a document like the following:
{{{
Regulations of Agora
Regulation 1: These are the regulations of Agora. A regulation is a
body of text with the capacity to govern the game generally.
Regulation 2: Regulations take precedence over rules. Rules have no
capacity to govern the game.
Regulation 3: root is the Emperor of Agora.
}}}
Would you simply accept that by creating this document I had magically
superseded the rules? After all, the rules are self-empowered, and so
are these fictitious regulations.
-root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:03 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: I don't buy that. The rules are self-empowered, per R2141: A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern the game generally. Suppose I were to publish a document like the following: I agree with everything that follows this paragraph, but after reading it several times I can't figure out how it has anything to do with the topic. :/ I claim that the thing that prevents a new rules-like document from superseding the rules is the same thing that prevents a relatively low-power rule change (i.e. the one that created R2229) from contravening a high-power rule like R1482. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:03 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: I don't buy that. The rules are self-empowered, per R2141: A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern the game generally. Suppose I were to publish a document like the following: I agree with everything that follows this paragraph, but after reading it several times I can't figure out how it has anything to do with the topic. :/ I claim that the thing that prevents a new rules-like document from superseding the rules is the same thing that prevents a relatively low-power rule change (i.e. the one that created R2229) from contravening a high-power rule like R1482. Or to look at it another way, a low-power rule change that contravenes a high-power rule is, in effect, a change to the high-power rule. If that change wasn't caused by an instrument with sufficient power, it can't happen. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:23 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: Another option is that, in order to interpret the Rules at any particular instant, we should use the guidelines specified in the /last/ instant. Thus at the moment a problematic low-power rule is enacted, we use the rules from a moment ago that state high-powered rules take precedence over low-powered rules. Therefore, the high-power precedence rule takes precedence over the problematic one, and therefore high-powered rules take precedence over low-powered rules-- so we're safe for the next instant as well, and the next and the next. This is sure convenient, but what tells us to use such a relatively odd rule? And what happens at the start of the game, when there is no previous instant to fall back on? Nomic is supposed to be a legal simulation, so try another analogy. Suppose the U.S. Congress enacted a bill stating that bills enacted by Congress take precedence over the Constitution. What do you think would happen? My opinion is that the bill would be struck down as unconstitutional, and unless Congress had an army to enforce their coup, everyone would just get on with their lives -- possibly with an unusually low number of incumbents getting re-elected in the next election cycle. -root
Re: DIS: More invasion thoughts
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:28 PM, Sgeo sgeos...@gmail.com wrote: Making it so that only one new person a day can register might slow down invasions. Perhaps making it so that only 2 people can register in any given block of two consecutive days might also help in the case that two people happen to try to register in one day. Classification scheme for invasion sizes: Class 0: Can't even block an AI=3 proposal Class 1: Can block an AI=3 proposal that every non-invader votes FOR and every invader votes AGAINST Class 2: Can block an AI=2 proposal that every non-invader votes FOR and every invader votes AGAINST Class 3: Can block a Democratic AI=1 proposal that every non-invader votes FOR and every invader votes AGAINST _or_ Can pass a democratic AI=1 proposal that every invader votes FOR and every non-invader votes AGAINST (there may be a 1 person difference between the two definitions) Class 4: Can pass an AI=2 proposal that every invader votes FOR and every non-invader votes AGAINST Class 5: Can pass an AI=3 proposal that every invader votes FOR and every non-invader votes AGAINST Class 6: Can overwhelm the game's architecture, disrupting all public communication. -root
Re: DIS: More invasion thoughts
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:28 PM, Sgeo sgeos...@gmail.com wrote: Making it so that only one new person a day can register might slow down invasions. Perhaps making it so that only 2 people can register in any given block of two consecutive days might also help in the case that two people happen to try to register in one day. Classification scheme for invasion sizes: Class 0: Can't even block an AI=3 proposal Class 1: Can block an AI=3 proposal that every non-invader votes FOR and every invader votes AGAINST Class 2: Can block an AI=2 proposal that every non-invader votes FOR and every invader votes AGAINST Class 3: Can block a Democratic AI=1 proposal that every non-invader votes FOR and every invader votes AGAINST _or_ Can pass a democratic AI=1 proposal that every invader votes FOR and every non-invader votes AGAINST (there may be a 1 person difference between the two definitions) Class 4: Can pass an AI=2 proposal that every invader votes FOR and every non-invader votes AGAINST Class 5: Can pass an AI=3 proposal that every invader votes FOR and every non-invader votes AGAINST Class 6: Can overwhelm the game's architecture, disrupting all public communication. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: A couple more CfJs
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Rodlen rodlenj...@gmail.com wrote: I CfJ on the following statement: Not treating Agora right good forever violates rule 101. See CFJ 1945. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Caste / AAA pledge
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: I pledge to spend a major chord to increase the caste of any player who transfers me one of the following for such explicit purpose, as soon as possible after such a transfer occurs: * five X crops * eight crops of any other variety or varieties * a digit ranch * two mills of any variety or varieties * three WRV I transfer 10 X crops to BobTHJ to have my caste increased twice. -root
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Office Report
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: I'm having the same trouble when I use gmail in FRC. Couldn't figure out how to fix so I'd take pointers on that too if anyone has 'em. For here, it's often worth looking at how things look in the archives instead of an email client, I think the archives match more common display options. Gmail labs has a Show in fixed-width font feature that is very useful for reading reports. It's a bit more convenient than the built-in Show original feature. For creating reports, preformat it in an external editor, and always use plain-text editing. Also, one quirk I've run into with gmail is that when reading a message, if a line begins with at least two spaces (I think just one is okay), it automatically removes a space from the beginning. It does this in both the regular display and the Show in fixed-width font display, even when the Content-type doesn't specify format=flowed. The Show original display, of course, is fine. To accommodate that, since so many players use gmail, I've lately been trying to avoid beginning lines with spaces when writing reports. You can see this in the Scorekeepor reports I've been publishing. I haven't gotten around to fixing up the Herald's report yet, but it's probably not a big deal since it's not very tabular anyway. -root
DIS: Proto-contest: Red November
Proto-contest: Red November 1. This is a public contract called Red November. This contract is intended to be a contest. The contestmaster CAN add the Y axis to and remove any other axis from this contract by announcement. 2. A contestant to this contract who is currently involved in an ongoing game is known as a gnome. Within this contract, the phrase on the double means within 48 hours. 3. Any player CAN join this contract by announcement. Any contestant who is not a gnome CAN leave this contract by announcement. 4. Whenever this contract is a contest, no game is ongoing, and this contract has at least three contestants, the contestmaster CAN start a new game. 5. To start a new game, the contestmaster selects three to eight contestants, randomly assigns each a starting location within the experimental gnomish submarine BFGS Red November, and awards two randomly drawn starting items to each. E then announces each gnome's location, as well as the time remaining to each gnome (as laid out on the game board, see Appendix A). This announcement begins a game. 6. When the contestmaster awards a randomly drawn item to a gnome, e SHALL inform the gnome of the identity of the item on the double. The contestmaster SHALL NOT reveal any gnome's inventory to anyone except as required by this contract. 7. Each gnome has an intoxication level, an integer from 0 to 3, inclusive. All gnomes begin the game at 0 intoxication. Each time a gnome uses a grog item, eir intoxication increases by one, to a maximum of 3. Each time a gnome uses a coffee item, eir intoxication decreases by two, to a minimum of 0. 8. Any gnome with more than zero minutes remaining CAN take a turn by announcement, provided that all turns previously taken in the same game have been fully resolved by the contestmaster. A turn consists of a sequence of movement, followed by one action. A gnome can also use items at any point in eir turn; once used, an item is lost. Any time spent as required by this contract in the course of a turn is deducted from the gnome's remaining time. 9. A gnome's sequence of movement consists of one or more iterations of the following steps: a. Spend one minute to Open an unblocked hatch attached to the room the gnome is in. b. If one of the rooms connected by the open hatch is at high water, and the other has no water, then water equalizes between the two rooms; both become at low water. If the room that had no water was on fire, the fire is extinguished. c. Optionally enter a room or exit the sub through the opened hatch. To exit the sub, or to enter a room at low water, one minute must be spent. Additionally, to exit the sub the gnome must have used an aqualung in the current turn. Rooms at high water cannot be entered. A room that is on fire can be entered only if the gnome has used a grog or fire extinguisher item in the current turn. d. The hatch automatically closes. 10. The action taken by a gnome during a turn must be one of the following: a. Unblock a blocked hatch connected to the room. b. Extinguish a fire in the room. c. Pump low water out of the room. d. In room 1, fix the engine. If successful, this resets the pressure disaster track and prevents all Crushed! timed destruction events at the gnome's current time or later. e. In room 2, fix the oxygen pumps. If successful, this resets the asphyxiation disaster track and prevents all Asphyxiated! timed destruction events at the gnome's current time or later. f. In room 4, fix the reactor. If successful, this resets the heat disaster track. g. In room 7, stop a missile launch. If successful, this prevents all Missiles Launched! timed destruction events at the gnome's current time or later. h. Outside the sub, kill a kraken threatening the sub. If successful, this prevents all Devoured by Kraken! timed destruction events at the gnome's current time or later. i. In room 8, spend one to four minutes to gain the same number of items. The contestmaster awards the items gained, drawn at random, to the gnome. j. In room 0, spend one or two minutes to gain the same number of grog items. The number of grog items that can be gained in this manner during a single game is limited to six. k. In a room with another gnome, spend one minute to give any number of items to that gnome. The recipient CAN then give any number of items in return by announcement; this can only be done before the next turn is taken. l. Spend one minute to perform no action. m. Outside the sub, spend all remaining minutes to abandon eir comrades. This action is only available if, at the start of the turn, all gnomes had fewer
Re: DIS: Proto-contest: Red November
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: I am having serious trouble figuring out what happens here if multiple gnomes abandon their comrades, and the sub is lost. The phrasing used in the original rules is that a gnome who abandons has eir winning conditions reversed, which would imply that both should win. I'll tidy this up.
Re: DIS: Proto-contest: Red November
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Quazie quazieno...@gmail.com wrote: What if the room connected by the open hatch is at high water and the other is at low water? No change? No change, there's no medium water state. Also, how many minutes does each gnome start with? Is there some representation of the track? 46-60 minutes, depending on the number of gnomes. The board image linked to in the appendix has the time track running around the edge of the board. Can we earn points for any intermediate actions? Not currently, but I'll consider adding points for fixing things. Where are the items listed? I'll add an Appendix B with the item descriptions and distribution. -root
Re: DIS: Proto-contest: Red November
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Benjamin Caplan celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote: 46-60 minutes, depending on the number of gnomes. The board image linked to in the appendix has the time track running around the edge of the board. It would be good to have this explicit, probably in paragraph 5. Okay, I'll add another appendix. Also, the various time and disaster tracks don't seem to be defined anywhere. How do those work? Oops. I'll add explanations of those. The time track is just a visualization of time remaining and when events occur, but the disaster tracks will need more detail. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Fixing that bug
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: I submit the following proposal, named Fixing contestmaster flipping, with AI=1, II=1 (( Amend the sentence in rule 2136 now reading: ( A contract's contestmaster CAN be flipped by any player without 3 objections, or as specified by the contract. ) to read: ( A contract's contestmaster CAN be flipped by any player without 3 objections, or, if it is a contest, as specified by the contract. ) Please also have the proposal flip the contestmasters of all the contests that are currently getting scammed in back to null. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: [DM] (i)nventory
On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: I revoke 3 x-points from comex. I award 8 y-points to comex. I revoke 3 y-points from comex. I award 2 x-points to comex. I award 10 y-points to comex. I revoke 2 x-points from Quazie. I award 3 y-points to Quazie. I award 5 x-points to Quazie. I revoke 2 y-points from Tiger. I award 1 y-point to Tiger. I act on Tiger's behalf to destroy two of eir Scrolls labeled LROAEM DLANB. Total x-points awarded: 10 Total y-points awarded: 21 Total x-points revoked: 5 Total y-points revoked: 5 The Y axis awards and revocations fail, as I can't find any record of the Y axis being added to the contest. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: [DM] (i)nventory
On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: I revoke 3 x-points from comex. I revoke 2 x-points from Quazie. These revocations also failed due to comex and Quazie not having any points to revoke at the time. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2482 assigned to ais523
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Mon, 4 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote: On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 14:02 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: I judge this TRUE; rule 101 has higher Power, so by rule 1482 it does indeed take precedence. I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this ruling. R1482 only applies in conflicts between 2 rules, and the judgement explicitly doesn't consider whether such a conflict exists. The precedence relationship between two rules doesn't depend on whether there's a conflict between them or not. The in a conflict wording in R1482 is defining what precedence means, in this case. Note that R1482 doesn't explicitly define precedence when there's no conflict, so precedence is not defined in the rules, so a rules are silent argument can be made on either side. It's all semantic. If Sentence A is in Rule A, and Sentence B is in Rule B, and Rule A Rule B, but Sentence A and Sentence B are wholly unrelated and have no conflict, you can say either: 1. Rule A Rule B, therefore sentence A sentence B, but it doesn't matter or affect anything at the moment (ais523's opinion). 2. Rule A Rule B, but sentence A and sentence B aren't in the same units, so comparisons aren't meaningful (Wooble's appeals argument). I personally prefer #1 (ais523) out of aesthetics, and also (in case Sentence C in Rule C somehow makes A and B conflict) the lines of precedence remain constant. Proto: Create a new power-1 rule titled Paradox! reading: Unless Rule 101 takes precedence over this rule, persons have no rights. -root
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Scorekeepor] Scoreboard
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: Ian Kelly wrote: Contest: Fantasy Rules Contest Contestmaster: Murphy Axes: X Awardable Pts: 25+25i Minor CoE: 25+0i Admitted, thanks. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Gimme!
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 12:24 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: I performed duties related to Fantasy Rules Contest in a timely manner during April. I performed duties related to The Cookie Jar in a timely manner during April. (Contestant counts based on the Notary wiki) The Notary wiki isn't guaranteed to be up-to-date except just before a report, because I update it in batches. TBH, there's actually no guarantee it's up-to-date at all, because nothing forces me to update it, but for pragmatic reasons it tends to be up-to-date at about the time of a report. I heartily encourage the contestmasters to inform me if the counts are incorrect. -root
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Scorekeepor] Medals
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 12:51 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: I just noticed I've been neglecting part of the Scorekeepor's report. In the future, this will be published with the rest of the report. Medals -- 3-Scroll Rodney 1 root 1 I'm actually mildly curious as to why you haven't done the Win Announcement yet. I'm hoping to save it until a time when I don't already have MwoP. -root
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Scorekeepor] Medals
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:15 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/5/4 Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com: I'm actually mildly curious as to why you haven't done the Win Announcement yet. I'm hoping to save it until a time when I don't already have MwoP. This is a win announcement: root owns a Medal. Fails; I have a rest. -root
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: However, since that's defined under unique patent titles, there may be an error in that only the last Maniac should have the title. Unless Maniac was somehow made non-unique prior to the wins. Good catch. It was listed as unique right up until it was repealed. I believe this means that only Craig actually holds the title. It's a shame that Peekee didn't get a win for it, as this means there will no longer be any record of em achieving the condition. -root
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 13:45 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: However, since that's defined under unique patent titles, there may be an error in that only the last Maniac should have the title. Unless Maniac was somehow made non-unique prior to the wins. Good catch. It was listed as unique right up until it was repealed. I believe this means that only Craig actually holds the title. It's a shame that Peekee didn't get a win for it, as this means there will no longer be any record of em achieving the condition. Has the Herald's report been ratified since? Ah, yes. The current report lacks the ratification date for some reason, but a search of my archives reveals that it was last ratified July 21, 2004 -- by myself, incidentally. -root
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 13:45 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: However, since that's defined under unique patent titles, there may be an error in that only the last Maniac should have the title. Unless Maniac was somehow made non-unique prior to the wins. Good catch. It was listed as unique right up until it was repealed. I believe this means that only Craig actually holds the title. It's a shame that Peekee didn't get a win for it, as this means there will no longer be any record of em achieving the condition. Has the Herald's report been ratified since? Ah, yes. The current report lacks the ratification date for some reason, but a search of my archives reveals that it was last ratified July 21, 2004 -- by myself, incidentally. That report can be found at http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2004-July/001583.html in case anyone is curious. -root
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: However, since that's defined under unique patent titles, there may be an error in that only the last Maniac should have the title. Unless Maniac was somehow made non-unique prior to the wins. It occurs to me that there may have been Maniacs prior to Peekee who are no longer recorded because they lost the title when Peekee gained it. Does anybody know? -root
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Scorekeepor] Medals
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:18 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: I don't like my notes wasted :| Boo hoo. I don't like my medals wasted. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Research
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Benjamin Caplan celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote: Ian Kelly wrote: On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: The second deals with the paradoxability of ratification. Regardless of the outcome of the first CFJ, the second is potentially paradoxical, unless the ratification doesn't consider its own effect part of the things to ratify. I'm thinking that once the gamestate is ratified, it's ratified. The fact that the new time-stream doesn't include an effective ratification of itself doesn't invalidate it. From R1551 (Ratification): Nevertheless, the ratification of a public document does not invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel any messages or actions, even if they were unrecorded or overlooked, or change the legality of any attempted action. I believe that the ratification of the Regsitrar's report is a message or action that is not invalidated ... or cancelled, even by itself. I've always understood that to refer only to messages and actions that took place prior to the document's publication. It could have strange ramifications otherwise. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: No forced championship wins
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: If it is, we should probably generalise it even further, causing all win conditions to give people medals, and letting them cash them in for wins any time they feel like it (whilst running the cleanup instantly). Why should champion's contest wins be any different from every other sort of win? (To take some examples off the top of my head, Paradox is storable, but only for a 2-week period; Musicianship isn't storable at all for more than a day; and Junta is platonic.) I like that. I'll vote FOR it, if you want to write it up. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Two ratification proposals
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
I submit the following proposal, entitled {I Fone}, II=0
{{{
Create a new power-1 rule with the following text:
If a public message claims to have been sent from a particular
device or class of device, that claim is self-ratifying.
}}}
Why?
-root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: No forced championship wins
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: Ian Kelly wrote: Renaissance is storable indefinitely. -root But you can't accumulate it - you can't build up to another one while you have one stored. True, although I find it difficult to imagine anybody winning by Renaissance *twice*. -root
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2490 assigned to comex
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: [This is what happens when you forget to disqualify.] Yeah, I'm bad about that. But why didn't you just assign it to Yally (or somebody else who was standing at the time)? At this point, either comex will recuse emself and you'll have to reassign it, or e'll judge it and it will likely end up appealed (assuming e judges it FALSE). -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2482 assigned to ais523
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: coppro wrote: I support and do so. H. Justiciar root, any preference on this one? Sure, I make CFJ 2482a hot. There should be a lukewarm option, indicating no preference but allowing the CotC to go ahead and assign a panel. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Enigma] The game goes on
On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Dvorak Herring dvorak.herr...@gmail.com wrote: Submission for Scamster-for-a-day: Change the power of Rule 2228 below 1.7 thus not allowing it to secure Rests at power 1.7. This would cause rests to be unsecured allowing one to create and destroy rests at will. Unsecured doesn't mean arbitrarily changeable at will. It would just mean there would be no minimum power requirement for a mechanism for changing it. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Enigma] Now officially a Champion's Contest!
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 8:14 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2009-05-01 at 20:19 -0400, Sgeo wrote:
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote:
Zing! Vext cwm fly jabs Kurd qoph
Will we all get to learn what the Clues were?
The Secret Answer no longer exists (now the Medal's been given away), so
the restriction on revealing information about it is lifted. I'll now
publically post all the Clues that anyone was given.
{{{
G1:
The secret answer consists of seven words.
The secret answer consists of two sentences.
S1:
The fourth word of the secret answer is the common English
name for a type of small flying insect.
G2:
A recent Google search for the secret answer, without
quotes, produced about 174 results. It produced about
407 when quotes were used (yes, more than without, for
some reason).
S2:
The fifth word of the secret answer is a common slang word
for injections.
G3:
If all letters were removed from the secret answer, leaving
only non-letter characters, it would be ! . (without
the quotes). It does not end with a newline.
S3:
The first word of the secret answer is an interjection that
is arguably onomatopoeic, referring to a short high-pitched
humming noise.
G4:
No word of the Secret Answer is longer than four letters
long. No word of the Secret Answer is shorter than three
letters long.
S4:
The second word of the secret answer is an archaic word
which means distressed or agitated.
G5:
The Secret Answer is, technically speaking, gramatically
correct English. However, it contains at least one proper
noun, and at least one archaic word; therefore it is not
the sort of utterance likely to be encountered in practice,
and might confuse an automated spelling or grammar checker.
S5:
The seventh word of the Secret Answer is a letter of the
Hebrew alphabet.
G6:
There are exactly three capital letters in the Secret
Answer. They are K, V, and Z, although not necessarily in
that order.
S6:
The sixth word of the Secret Answer refers to a member of
an ethnolinguistic group who mostly live in Iran, Iraq,
Syria, or Turkey.
}}}
I'd be interested to hear from root as to how e solved it, or indeed
from anyone else who made progress solving the puzzle. I'm also curious
as to how much back-room dealing was going on; the only evidence of it I
saw was root buying Clues in the PF, but of course there could be a lot
more I don't know about.
Through trading, I had all the clues except G2 and G5. I managed to
figure out the words Zing, Vext, jabs and Kurd from the clues.
I googled those words, and the first result contained the answer. I
thought the fourth word was probably bee but wasn't sure, so I
didn't use it in the search.
-root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Herald Must Announce a Change in Speaker
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 11:54 AM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: Amend Rule 402 (Identity of the Speaker) by adding the following to the end of the first paragraph: As soon as possible after the Speaker changes, the Herald SHALL Suggest identity of the Speaker changes. I hereby announce that the Speaker has changed into blue jeans and a sharp-looking tan polo shirt. -root
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2477 assigned to ais523
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: According to my understanding of the situation, ais523 needs to be awarded MwoP for eir win by High Score; once that is done, I'll work out who the MwoPs are. That was done by deputisation on April 6. The current MwoPs are comex, OscarMeyr, ais523, coppro, and root; the Speaker is comex. -root
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2477 assigned to ais523
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: According to my understanding of the situation, ais523 needs to be awarded MwoP for eir win by High Score; once that is done, I'll work out who the MwoPs are. That was done by deputisation on April 6. The current MwoPs are comex, OscarMeyr, ais523, coppro, and root; the Speaker is comex. Er, in order that should be comex, OscarMeyr, ais523, root, and coppro. -root
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2477 assigned to ais523
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Benjamin Caplan celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote: Aaron Goldfein wrote: On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote: I award the patent title of Champion to root. I award the patent title of Minister Without Portfolio to root. I award the patent title of Champion to coppro. I award the patent title of Minister Without Portfolio to coppro. -root Who is the current speaker? I think I was shortly before the scam. Did I break the record for shortest Speakership? Shortest finite length speakership perhaps. Shortest length would go to anyone who became and then ceased to be speaker in the same message, such as Murphy just now. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: May I please have another?
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Quazie quazieno...@gmail.com wrote: Or maybe, have a system under which people could pre-recuse themselves from specific cases, so they couldn't be assigned them. (Different people have different opinions on which cases are difficult; personally, I don't think 2477 is at all hard, and root could have judged it trivially were it not for the conflict of interest.) -- ais523 The above system did exist at one point. Don't remember the exact time period though. Judges used to be able to make themselves ineligible to judge specific cases or classes of cases by announcement (including the class of all cases; this was the original supine). I think it was dropped as a result of Zefram's major judicial reform of 2007. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: No more cronjobs at midnight
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
I submit the following proposal (titled Ease the rush, AI 2, II 1):
Remove the text
{{{
unless another player has already done so
during that Birthday.
}}}
from rule 2126.
Arguments: Loads of people have, or will have, sufficiently many Notes
to do a Happy Birthday this Birthday; as it is, everyone's bound to try
to send their message as soon as the birthday begins, and we'll have a
huge mess figuring out who was first. Also, rushing to get there first
isn't particularly interesting. I'm not sure what the best solution to
this is: giving everyone the win is at least simple.
I'll vote FOR a proposal like this if it would also repeal notes and
replace them with something new and interesting the day after.
-root
DIS: Re: BUS: Registration
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Manuel Lanctot sen...@gmail.com wrote: I register. Welcome back! -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: No more cronjobs at midnight
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote: I'll vote FOR a proposal like this if it would also repeal notes and replace them with something new and interesting the day after. Rough proto for a new economy. Comments? Retitle Rule 2126 as Shares and amend it to read: An entity's share price index is a non-negative integer, defaulting to 0. If an entity's share price index would become a negative value, it becomes 0. Shares are a class of assets. Ownership of shares is restricted to players. If changes to caste are secured, then changes to shares and share price indices are secured with the same power threshold. Each share has exactly one issuer, which is an entity with a positive share price index. The value of a share is equal to the share price index of its issuer. If an entity's share price index becomes zero, all shares of eir issue are destroyed. Shares with the same issuer and the same owner are fungible. If one entity owns the majority of the shares of a second entity's issue, the former entity CAN perform actions on behalf of the second entity. Positive share price indexes are adjusted as follows: (1) At the end of each week, for each player, let X be the number of eir interested proposals that were adopted during that week, and let Y be the number of eir interested quorate proposals that were rejected during that week with VI = AI/2. Eir share price index is increased by 2X + Y. (2) At the end of each week, the share price index of each player who completed the non-empty set of weekly duties of at least one office during that week is increased by the highest interest index among all such offices. (3) At the end of each month, the share price index of each player who completed the non-empty set of monthly duties of at least one office during that month is increased by the highest interest index among all such offices. (4) At the end of each week, the share price index of each player who published at least one on-time judgement during that week is increased by the highest interest index among all such cases. (5) At the end of each week, the share price index of each player who gained at least one Point during that week is increased by one. (6) At the end of each week, the share price index of each contestmaster who awarded at least one Point during that week is increased by one. (7) At the end of each week, the share price index of each player who authored at least one proposal with an Interest Index of 2 that passed during that week is increased by one. (8) At the end of each week, the share price index of each player who authored at least one proposal with an Interest Index of 3 that passed during that week is increased by one. The rules may define ways for entities to spend (destroy) shares. However, rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an entity CANNOT spend shares of eir own issue. To spend share value X is to spend a set of shares with total value of at least X. Shares CAN be spent as follows: (1) To issue shares is to create shares of one's own issue in one's own possession. An entity with a share price index of 0 CAN spend share value MN to set eir share price index to M and issue N shares, where M and N are positive integers. (2) A player CAN, except in the last 24 hours of a month, spend share value 3 to increase another non-Alpha player's caste by 1 level. (3) A non-Alpha player CAN spend share value 5 to increase eir own caste by 1 level. (4) A player CAN, except in the last 24 hours of a month, spend share value 3 to decrease another non-Savage player's caste by 1 level. (5) A non-Savage player CAN spend share value 5 to decrease eir own caste by 1 level. (6) A player CAN spend share value 1 to increase another player's voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by 1. (7) A player CAN spend share value 2 to increase eir voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by 1. (8) A player CAN spend share value 25 to split eir shares; eir share price index is halved (rounded down), and for each share of eir issue, an additional share of eir issue is created in the owner's possession.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: No more cronjobs at midnight
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote: (8) A player CAN spend share value 25 to split eir shares; eir share price index is halved (rounded down), and for each share of eir issue, an additional share of eir issue is created in the owner's possession. Revision: (8) A player CAN spend share value X, where X is the total number of shares of eir issue in existence, to split eir shares; eir share price index is halved (rounded down), and for each share of eir issue, an additional share of eir issue is created in the owner's possession. I made the action expensive because it's obviously powerful, but the expense really needs to scale up. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: No more cronjobs at midnight
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: On Fri, 2009-05-01 at 16:21 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: An entity's share price index is a non-negative integer, defaulting to 0. If an entity's share price index would become a negative value, it becomes 0. Attaching a tracked value to everything in existence is another mistake B made, which caused all sorts of problems. I suggest you limit this to a few defined classes of entities. I'll be sure not to require the recordkeepor to track it when it's 0. Non-zero values are already limited to entities that have issued shares at some point, which by nature of the mechanism for doing so limits it to players and former players. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2471-4
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Quazie quazieno...@gmail.com wrote: When I became a player is relevant, and what constitutes a valid registration is relevant. So the judgements should be left alone, since that's what they currently determine. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Generalize equity
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: Heh, I have a proposal in the pool to achieve more or less exactly the same effect, at the moment. Mine tries to fix the immediate aftermath of the scams win, though (restoring the points of players whose points were unintentionally reset), in addition to providing for future situations. I was actually going to do that in a separate proposal. I don't like the way yours does it, though; consider what happens if somebody else manages to win by high score by the time it passes. My intent is to figure what the scores should be right now and have the proposal ratify those as of the time of submission. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: [Promotor] Midweek Distribution 6238 - 6256
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: 6254 Mitigate point scams O 1.0 1 root AGAINST x 2 - there's no requirement this would have to be used for It's not intended for scams only. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Thesis, compressed
Really, the idea that R2105 (The Map of Agora) has been a traditional target of scamsters is a bit exaggerated. Here's the full history. The map was created by Maud's proposal 4735. This wasn't the result of a scam or anything, but people were itching a bit for a map, and voters liked the proposal. Sherlock's proposal 4807 added the whale and the names of Sherlock, Goethe, and Manu. Back then, ordinary proposals were much more limited in terms of who could vote on them at the time, and they happened to be the eligible voters at the time. There wasn't an actual scam involved as far as I can recall. Manu's proposal 4821, PH'NGLUI attempted to replace the whale with R'lyeh, but failed. Oscar's Mire was added as a gratuitous side effect of Goethe's Proposal 4866, the large repeal proposal of 2006. And the last proposal to amend the rule's text was Zefram's Proposal 4946, which merely fiddled with the formatting. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Scam
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 10:50 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: The following is a Win Announcement: root and coppro have scores x + yi such that xy = 2500. I nominate comex, ehird, and Quazie as Scorekeepor. By the way, this is silly. All the players you nominated are also known for running scams. What exactly are you trying to fix? -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: NoVs
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 8:34 AM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: comex wrote: NoV: coppro violated R2215 by making this statement intended to All your recently attempted NoVs are invalid due to not specifying Power, anyway. Go ahead and post a clean set. On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: CoE: Murphy has only 5+5i points NoV: coppro violated Power=1 R2215 by making this statement intended to mislead others as to its truth value. During the hours between the CoE and its denial, readers probably didn't go to the trouble to actually look up the relevant score events but instead assumed it was a simple correction. (I don't remember if I was online to read this CoE myself, but I generally accept CoEs to other people's reports at face value.) There was no intent to mislead as to the truth of the claim here; the intent was that the claim would be questioned and ultimately denied. It did not matter to the scam whether anyone actually believed the claim was true. On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:29 AM, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote: Admitted. coppro has 1+ 4i points. I intend, with support, to publish the following NoV (I admit this one's a bit iffy): root violated Power=1 R2215 by making the statement Admitted., intended to mislead others as to its effectiveness. This admission was not very effective as its self-ratification lasted only a few hours before being reversed. answers.com defines 'effective' as 'Having an intended or expected effect.', and while this may have had the intended effect, it sure didn't have the expected one. Publishing a revision to a document in response to a claim of error is not an action and has no effect at all, other than to satisfy the requirement to publish it. In this regard it absolutely had its expected effect. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: NoVs
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote: I intend, with support, to publish the following NoV (I admit this one's a bit iffy): root violated Power=1 R2215 by making the statement Admitted., intended to mislead others as to its effectiveness. This admission was not very effective as its self-ratification lasted only a few hours before being reversed. answers.com defines 'effective' as 'Having an intended or expected effect.', and while this may have had the intended effect, it sure didn't have the expected one. Publishing a revision to a document in response to a claim of error is not an action and has no effect at all, other than to satisfy the requirement to publish it. In this regard it absolutely had its expected effect. In fact, it should be pointed out that the rules *required* me to respond to the CoE in this way. I don't see that R2215 required me in any way to be extra verbose about it. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: NoVs
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:19 AM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote: There was no intent to mislead as to the truth of the claim here; the intent was that the claim would be questioned and ultimately denied. It did not matter to the scam whether anyone actually believed the claim was true. It doesn't matter whether you wanted people to be misled. coppro intentionally published a false statement, and there is no evidence e was unaware that it would mislead people. Compare my scam distribution and the statement about the empty proposal pool, which I would surely have been convicted for had I sent the distribution knowing it would contain that statement. Of course it matters. R2215 specifically refers to a statement that is intended to mislead others -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6191 - 6195
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 11:17 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: Per CFJ 2450, I award 96+96i points to comex. Disclaimer: This message is an attempt to construct a paradox. Nothing here is definitely false; but it may be confusing. The following sentence is a Win Announcement, and this sentence serves to clearly label it as one. This sentence is false, and comex has a score x+yi such that xy = 2500. I call for judgement on the statement The Herald CAN award comex a second instance of Champion. Trivially FALSE. comex has a rest, which is a Losing Condition. But I don't think you would get a paradox out of this anyway; it would simply not be a Win Announcement, due to not being true. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6191 - 6195
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: Trivially FALSE. comex has a rest, which is a Losing Condition. E burned it off, I thought? E had two; I think e has only burned one off so far. But I don't think you would get a paradox out of this anyway; it would simply not be a Win Announcement, due to not being true. Claiming it isn't true leads to a contradiction, if you accept that comex does indeed have such an abnormally high score. The liar's paradox is neither true nor false. A win announcement must be correct which cannot be the case if it is not true. This is essentially the same argument I used in judging CFJ 2463. -root
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Re: [IADoP] Office Report
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Yally wrote: Well ais523 as Speaker is just left over from when Wooble last completed the report. I haven't changed it simply because I have no idea what the MWoP situation is. TTBoMK: * the MWoPs are ais523, Goethe, OscarMeyr, comex, and me * coppro and root will replace Goethe and me Shouldn't Pavitra hold MWoP instead of Goethe because Goethe isn't a player? I believe that's correct. Goethe had already deregistered when MWoP was awarded to ais523, so the title was revoked from Goethe, not Pavitra. Pavitra is inactive, so Murphy is still the Speaker. coppro and I will replace Pavitra and Murphy. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: NoVs
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Evidence: I was misled. When I first saw that Scorekeepor's Report, my first thought was what the heck did they do to earn that many points?. Well, I tried to make it as obviously suspicious as possible. That's why we both had *exactly* 50+50i, and why the report was titled Totally Correct Scoreboard instead of just the usual Scoreboard. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Scam
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Quazie quazieno...@gmail.com wrote: I'm known for running scams? Okay, maybe not to the same extent as myself, comex, or ehird, but you've been involved before. Remember Glub Glub? -root
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2451a assigned to BobTHJ, Rodlen, root
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Rodlen rodlenj...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2451a Appeal 2451a Panelist: BobTHJ Decision: Panelist: Rodlen Decision: Panelist: root Decision: History: Appeal initiated: 26 Apr 2009 19:46:26 GMT Assigned to BobTHJ (panelist): (as of this message) Assigned to Rodlen (panelist): (as of this message) Assigned to root (panelist): (as of this message) Appellant comex's Arguments: I already gained a Rest for the same action, the false contestmaster award claims, due to the NoV accusing me of violating truthfulness; this punishment may therefore be invalid due to R101. Note, however, that I did close the NoV myself, and see CFJ 1981 (but I think the situation is quite different here). I'm not sure about this yet. R101 does prevent punishing multiple times for the same action, unless the first penalty is at least partially replaced with a comparable penalty. However, I see no replacement here...but CFJ 1981 doesn't support people punishing themselves. I'm thinking REMAND, or possibly OVERRULE, but I'm not opining anything yet. Am I missing something here? According to R1504, When a judicial question on culpability is judged after a number of rests have been created in the Accused's possession due to the associated notice, the judge CAN and SHALL destroy any such rests by announcement as soon as possible. So Judge Taral is required to destroy the rest that was created when comex closed the NoV, and this penalty should be allowed to stand. -root
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2451a assigned to BobTHJ, Rodlen, root
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 15:31 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: So Judge Taral is required to destroy the rest that was created when comex closed the NoV, and this penalty should be allowed to stand. The question here is, does punishing someone, punishing them a second time, then undoing the first punishment, break R101? I suspect it might. That's also possibly a R101 bug. I think that would scenario would clearly fall under the replacing part or all of a penalty with a different but comparable penalty clause of R101. From comex's clarification, that's not actually the case here, though. -root
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2451a assigned to BobTHJ, Rodlen, root
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 3:40 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: I closed a different NoV, which alleged the breach of a Power=1 rule. I was then judged GUILTY on a separate case alleging the breach of a Power=3 rule for the same action. Thanks, I didn't realize there were two separate NoVs involved. Now, why did you close the 1-rest NoV, when you knew there was also a 3-rest NoV for the same action? It appears to me that you may have deliberately tried to use R101 to avoid the potential 3-rest penalty, and I'm tempted to opine that by trying to abuse the judicial system in this manner, you have implicitly waived your R101 right not to be penalized twice for this action. -root
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2451a assigned to BobTHJ, Rodlen, root
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 5:05 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Why wouldn't 18 be appropriate? It past cases repeat offenses have been discounted (punishing only for the first one), but in this case the reward for each instance was additive (each breach made you more points, right?) so why shouldn't the punishment be additive? Sorry if I have my facts wrong or misunderstand why you say it's not likely. -G. It's nearly enough to get me deregistered, which I think is a bit harsh for a relatively minor scam. You could have mitigated it somewhat by only making the claim four times instead of six. -root
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2452 assigned to root
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2452 == CFJ 2452 == Actions can be taken in plain-text attachments sent via a Public Forum. Caller: ais523 Judge: root Judgement: History: Called by ais523: 17 Apr 2009 22:10:24 GMT Assigned to root: (as of this message) Gratuitous Evidence by comex: Gmail's preview line shows the message as: BUS: A testý - This is a test. I call for judgement on the statement Actions can be taken in plain-text … Gratuitous Arguments by root: This is probably a bad idea. I didn't even notice the attachment at first, probably because the abundance of PGP signature attachments has trained me to ignore attachments that I'm not expecting. Gratuitous Evidence by root: It doesn't for me. H. CotC, I'm late. I'll judge this case tonight. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: I was listed as Arnold Bros, and it said that ehrid changed eir name to that. If you're going to list my new name, it would make sense that it would be properly written; and ehrid is unambiguously an error. That's a typo. A particularly dangerous typo, since ehrid has previously been used to refer to an entity distinct from ehird. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Binding Inquiry Cases
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case are the judicial panels consisting of exactly min(3,1+2*R) members (where R is the rank of the prior case), where each of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior case and none of the members is the prior judge, unless the prior case is a binding inquiry case, in which case the panels must have exactly 3+2*R members qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior case, none of them being the prior judge. [Note: this is effectively a superset of Murphy's proposal regarding appeal cases.] Surely you mean max(3, 1+2*R)? -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement, CFJ 2450
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: (CFJ 2450: The Scorekeepor SHALL award me 6N points as defined by Rule 2234 in relation to Enigma.) First, the arguments in CFJ 2451 suggest an obvious solution to this. It ruled that comex did indeed make such an announcement, suggesting TRUE. However, it left slightly unresolved the number of actions in question, and CFJs can be appealed, so I want to consider the arguments surrounding this case myself as well. First, the rule in question (2234) says MAY once announce; therefore, such an announcement, if made by the contestmaster and only once, does not violate rule 2234. It is worth noting that if a rule says that a player MAY do something under certain conditions, then doing it under other conditions, unless some other rule specifically permits it, violates rule 2125 rather than the rule in question. (It's rule 2125 which says that an action MAY NOT be performed if a rule says that it MAY be performed under certain conditions, unless allowed by the rules; for sanity's sake, it's best to consider a statement by a rule that a player MAY do something as allowing it, otherwise more or less every action in Agora is illegal. Luckily, this issue is only mildly related to this case; it may be worth calling another CFJ to explore it in more details.) Rule 2234 does not put any restrictions on what a player CAN announce. Rule 478 (it is hereby resolved that no Player shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.) makes it pretty clear that a player CAN announce things (not just in general, but as a pretty strong right; the precedent of CFJ 1738 implies that it is in fact even stronger than this, extending into implications (a rule allowing a player to only make false statements, for instance, conflicts with and is prevented from acting by rule 478)). This CFJ is about the CAN, not the MAY, and I think it's pretty well established that comex's announcements were POSSIBLE. The subject to other rules concerning truthfulness likewise only affects MAY, not CAN; and unless a rule explicitly suggests that something is possible only if legal, legality and possibility are separate. The remaining question, then, is whether they constitute such an announcement for the purposes of rule 2234. The problem is that the whole first paragraph of the rule is more or less redundant. It states that a player MAY do something, and they certainly CAN do that. So when do they do it? As Taral's ruling says, we need to identify what part of the first paragraph defines the action, and what part specifies the conditions under which it's legal. In general, formalised by rule 2125 but common sense anyway, the purpose specifying that one player MAY do something which would otherwise be legal is to point out that other players MAY NOT. There's an implication there, in other words, that the player CAN do the action; we've already established that a player CAN announce what they like, but this is a different matter of establishing that a player CAN illegally perform the action in the first paragaph of rule 2125. Just as Taral ruled, therefore, it seems that it is indeed possible to do the action in the first paragraph of rule 2234, and comex isn't missing any of the information required. (The announcement was a complete lie, but was such an announcement.) So the remaining question is as to whether all 6 of comex's announcements counted, or just one of them. The MAY once phrasing is pretty clear; the words are right next to each other, and if the once isn't directly bound to the MAY, it's hard to see how anything is. In other words, the first paragraph implies that it's illegal for a contestmaster to multi-announce, not that multi-announcing somehow makes the future announcements a different sort of announcement. Therefore, all 6 of comex's announcements were in fact the sort of announcement required by rule 2234, and despite their illegality, they were effective. I judge CFJ 2450 TRUE. Fair enough. I'll wait a couple more days in case of appeals, and then I'll award the points. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2454b assigned to Rodlen, ehird, coppro
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2454b I opine REASSIGN. Yally has twice failed to provide a complete and valid reasoning for eir judgment. I don't get it. If you disagree with my judgment, why not just overrule? It's the job of the judge, not the appeal panel, to evaluate the arguments, determine which are meritorious, and make a ruling. The appeal panel's job is merely to evaluate the existing judgement and do whatever is necessary to ensure that the judge actually did eir job reasonably. The complaint is that you appear to have skipped the first two steps above and gone straight to the third. Also, it's easier to get three people to agree on REMAND or REASSIGN than on AFFIRM or OVERRULE. -root
Re: DIS: Re: Proto-Proposal: Performance Analysis
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: Proposal: Performance Analysis (AI = 1, II = 2) Create a new Rule with Power 1 and the following text Performance Analysis is a player switch with values Masterful, Clean (default), and Dirty. If a player is the Accused of an Uncontested Notice of Violation or is the Accused of a criminal case judged GUILTY, eir Performance Analysis CAN be flipped to Dirty by any player by announcement. If a Judge or Appeals Panel later finds the Accused NOT GUILTY for a crime or Uncontested Notice of Violation for which the Accused's Performance Analysis was flipped from Clean to Dirty or Masterful to Dirty, then any player can flip eir Performance Analysis to its previous value by announcement. Having a Performance Analysis of Dirty is a losing condition. Any player CAN spend one note and clearly announce that he is attempting to flip eir Performance Analysis to Clean. Any other player CAN spend the same note within four days and flip either the original player's Performance Analysis or both players' Performance Analysis to Clean by announcement. Any player CAN spend one note of each type and clearly announce that he is attempting to flip eir Performance Analysis to Masterful. Any other player CAN spend one note of each type within four days and flip both players' Performance Analysis to Masterful by announcement. Upon a win announcement that exactly one player has a Performance Analysis of Masterful and that e has had a Performance Analysis of Masterful continuously for at least the previous two weeks and that no other player has had a Performance Analysis of Masterful for the previous two weeks, e satisfies the Winning Condition of Best in Show. Cleanup procedure: That player CAN and SHALL, in the same announcement, flip eir Performance Analysis to Clean. End Proposal -Yally A slightly modified version. This seems very similar to the losing condition of having rests and the winning condition of solitude. Why would we want this as well? -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: I'd say the most logical thing to call em would be 869850178 209745189 or pr76952a, or even do like teh mna in teh drak or whatever e was called, and refer to em with the shorter 869 while keeping the entire number combination in the registrar's report. But as long as everyone's clear on who we are referrng to, Nameless should work as well. I intend to refer to em as Goethe's friend Steve. Note: this is not in any way meant to imply that eir real name is Steve. I have no idea what eir real name is. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Scheduled actions
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Proposal: Scheduled actions (AI = 3, please) [Not everyone has access to a server with both cron and mail-sending capability. This would allow for things like At 23:59:59 UTC, if my caste is Alpha, then I spend notes to reduce it to be published at any time during the last day of the month.] Perhaps there should be a way to abort scheduled actions? For example, if I schedule At 23:59:59 UTC, if my caste is Alpha, then I spend notes to reduce it, and somebody else then schedules At 23:59:59.5 UTC, if root's caste is Beta, then I spend notes to increase it, I probably won't want to do my scheduled action any longer. On the other hand, this could engender abuse where somebody schedules an action, then aborts it, having never had any intention of actually doing it in the first place. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Scheduled actions
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: AGAINST because I think it's broken: if you're going to do this, explicitly legislate conditional actions instead of the current mess of precedents (and get rid of the conditional voting rule) so we know exactly what sort of conditional action works. But I'd vote against even if it were fixed, because, well, it's useless. I can then go ahead and say At 23:59:59.500 UTC, I spend notes to increase Murphy's caste, That's what integral number of seconds after midnight is intended to prevent. Well, that and questions about the physical possibility of something occurring 10^-100 seconds after something else. Sounds reasonable. You should put that in the proposal. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Enigma] This week's puzzles
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 3:12 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: The boat is designed for two rowers and one passenger, so the following three possibilities exist: 1. Only one person is in the boat. One person can manage the boat by emself, crossing at their normal rowing speed; however, because the boat is designed to be rowed by two people rather than one, no passengers can accompany the person rowing if only one person is rowing. 2. There are two people in the boat. In this case, both people must cooperate to row the boat across the river; one person cannot handle the boat by emself if it contains a passenger. Rowing at unequal speeds is a disaster (the boat would just go round in circles), so the faster rower has to slow down to the speed of the slower; as a result, the boat crosses the river in the same time that it would take the slower of the two passengers to row across by emself. Surely two rowers rowing at the same speed would propel the boat twice as fast as one alone... Only if a person can work one oar twice as fast as e can work two. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6191 - 6195
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 9:36 AM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: Murphy seems to be arguing that by announcement the rule really means the action described in the previous paragraph, which is a special case of an announcement, but this goes against the wording of the rule. No, e's arguing that by such an announcement, the rule means that. It actually seems rather intuitive that such an announcement would refer to a subset of announcements. It explicitly states a player makes such an announcement, not that player makes such an announcement or such an announcement is made, which would be more natural wordings in context. Certainly not. That player makes such an announcement would make no sense, as the previous paragraph refers to the contestmaster of each contest, not a single contestmaster. And I fail to see why such an announcement is made should be interpreted any differently, other than not implicitly requiring the contestmaster to be a player (which of course is already required by other rules). -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6191 - 6195
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 11:17 AM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: Fair enough. You wrote the text in question, but the fact that I genuinely misinterpreted the intended meaning (I thought it was intended to pragmatize the question of whether someone was actually a contestmaster) demonstrates there is at least some ambiguity. It was in fact intended to pragmatize the question of whether a contestmaster performed eir contest-related duties in a timely manner. I'm simply arguing that the announcement itself is different from the action of making the announcement, interpreting it akin to: The Anarchist MAY, as soon as possible after Bastille Day, publish a proposal containing the repeal of one or more rules. As soon as possible after a player publishes such a proposal, the Herald shall record that Bastille Day was celebrated. Clearly in this case the second paragraph applies even if someone else publishes a repeal proposal. If the second paragraph read any player rather than a player, I would agree on this. As it stands, it's ambiguous. I think the main difference between this example and R2234 is that here the preceding paragraph refers to a specific individual, The Anarchist rather than a variably sized subset of players, so the use of a player in the succeeding paragraph feels especially unnatural. I take your point, though. FWIW, the reason I used a player instead of a contestmaster in the proposal was that I didn't like referring to a contestmaster without reference to a particular contest (and the contestmaster of a contest just seemed excessively wordy), and I didn't see any harm in leaving the announcer relatively unconstrained since it was already constrained by the first paragraph. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6191 - 6195
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote: FWIW, the reason I used a player instead of a contestmaster in the proposal was that I didn't like referring to a contestmaster without reference to a particular contest (and the contestmaster of a contest just seemed excessively wordy), and I didn't see any harm in leaving the announcer relatively unconstrained since it was already constrained by the first paragraph. Oh, and I didn't like after such an announcement is made at the time, since that puts it in the passive voice. Although in retrospect, that might have been the best option. -root
Re: DIS: Internomic2
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: The nomics other than the ones mentioned having a lot of activity, obviously don't have a lot of activity. Being part of an active Internomic would be big for them (I'm mainly talking about xkcd nomic, but I'm sure it applies to the other two that have joined as well). I doubt that. Internomic being more active isn't going to miraculously make its constituent nomics more active; that requires actual effort on the part of the players. If players of relatively inactive nomics want to play in a more active nomic, then they should follow your example and find an active nomic to join. That said, realize that Wooble was the only player who actually voted against the proposal, and at AI-2 it would have passed. You could try just resubmitting the proposal... -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A test
2009/4/17 comex com...@gmail.com: On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: This is a test. Evidence: Gmail's preview line shows the message as: BUS: A test - This is a test. I call for judgement on the statement Actions can be taken in plain-text … It doesn't for me. Gratuitous: This is probably a bad idea. I didn't even notice the attachment at first, probably because the abundance of PGP signature attachments has trained me to ignore attachments that I'm not expecting. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Cookie Jar awards, and fixes to same
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: There are four active contestants (comex, coppro, ehird, Tiger), so I can award up to 20 points per week and revoke up to 8 per week. comex was not active at the beginning of the week, so e doesn't count. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote: 2009/4/14 Schrodinger's Cat schrodingers.kat...@gmail.com: I object. -- -- Schrodinger's Cat I wish inactives would stop objecting to their inactivation. Why? Their presence doesn't affect anything. If it does, it's probably a bug. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: Yes it does. Schrodinger's Cat is the longest name of any first-class player. It's annoying as far as the Registrar's report is concerned. Tom's is longer. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: Yes it does. Schrodinger's Cat is the longest name of any first-class player. It's annoying as far as the Registrar's report is concerned. Tom's is longer. -root I'm still listing him as Warrigal. Probably fine, although I would be insulted if I were em. R2139 only requires you to report on Information sufficient to identify and contact em. There's no requirement to include the player's most recent chosen nickname verbatim. Just include Schrodinger's Cat as S. Cat. -root
