Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Ambassador-at-Large] Foreign Relations
Entreco Rule 8, Idealism: The state of Entreco is determined by what its players believe that it is. > The state of the game can be changed by the consensus (including > unintentionally, if a mistake is made in applying the rules, and the > mistake is not caught quickly). Yowsers. What is the state of the game during periods when there is no consensus? Is the state of the game retroactively altered if a period of controversy is succeeded by the formation of a consensus? And Inquiries (Rule 9) can be limitlessly contested by a single player. There may not be much consensus to be had. An example. I register to play Entreco. Rule 2 says I get 50 zlotys. I try and transfer 25 zlotys to Fred. George now claims that I haven't got any zlotys. (Perhaps he gives an argument, perhaps not. "Disagreement can be created at the insistence of any player." as Suber's Initial Set has it.) I believe I have 50 zlotys; George believes I haven't any. There is no consensus. What is the state of the game? George initiates an Inquiry. The Judge rules that I had 50 zlotys. George contests the ruling. What is the state of the game? What happens when a ruling is contested? Rule 9 doesn't say. Does it become a fresh Inquiry? In principle George can maintain his disagreement indefinitely, thus keeping the state of the game indeterminate. Meanwhile Fred, who believes I had 50 zlotys and that he received half of them from me, has proceeded on that basis and made further transfers. What is the state of the game? Eventually George relents and allows one of the Judgements to go uncontested. It is thereby established that I had 50 zlotys. Or is it? Rule 8 says that the state of the game is whatever the players believe it to be. At the time of my attempted transfer to Fred, there was no consensus as to the state of the game. Could I have successfully transferred zlotys at a point in time when it was indeterminate whether I had any zlotys, notwithstanding that we later come to accept that I did have zlotys? On 16 July 2013 12:48, Tanner Swett wrote: > Here's the forum: https://groups.google.com/group/entreco-nomic The rules > haven't been published recently, but see the thread "The East Agora > Company" for the agreement that should eventually govern our relations with > Agora. > > —Machiavelli -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7516-7525
On 12 July 2013 09:59, omd wrote:
>
> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
>
> Proposal 7520 (AI=3, PF=Y0, Ordinary) by omd
> Grammar fixes
>
> Amend Rule 217 (Interpreting the Rules) by replacing:
>
> Differences in spelling, grammar, capitalization, whitespace,
> dialect, or the use of synonyms or abbreviations
>
> with:
>
> Differences in spelling, grammar, capitalization, whitespace,
> or dialect, and uses of synonyms or abbreviations
>
> Amend the Rule enacted by Proposal 7490 (Funcentives) by replacing:
>
> Players SHALL NOT discuss eir votes
>
> with:
>
> Players SHALL NOT discuss their votes
>
> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
>
>
That's not a typo, that's a Spivak pronoun. Blob introduced them to Agora,
and there's a long tradition of using them in the game. Why are you
proposing to erase this bit of Agoran history?
--
Steve Gardner
Research Grants Development
Faculty of Business and Economics
Monash University, Caulfield campus
Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486
e: steven.gard...@monash.edu
*** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate
Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). ***
Two facts about lists:
(1) one can never remember the last item on any list;
(2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I got Rule 101 problems
On 11 July 2013 13:21, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I think we're on the same page then, actually. I mentioned 'punishment' > as a > factor, but I didn't mean it to be the only one. E.g. one looks at the > whole > package to see if the effect on speech is particularly meaningful, can > probably > come up with some N-prong test etc. that includes strictness, time-limit, > punishment, etc. > > For example, if the contract simply said "I will pay omd for each day > e doesn't post. When e posts, e is in violation of the contract, the > contract is terminated without further penalty, and the pay ceases". > > This contract would fit the CFJ. Does it really do anything to > 'substantially > limit' the right? > You're right, it doesn't. I was thinking of cases where more explicit (punishment-like) penalties would be imposed for violation of the agreement. My overall opinion is that within the boundaries of the contract described > in > the CFJ, there are probably contracts that would violate and would not > violate. > So this might be UNDETERMINED. I just don't think R101 is so absolute such > that even a simple "you can't reveal this scam until Friday or you have to > pay > me" would violate it. > I think we agree. I have a dim recollection of having written a judgement that argued that a consequence has to meet a threshhold test to count as a punishment/penalty. -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I got Rule 101 problems
On 11 July 2013 12:55, Steven Gardner wrote: > On 11 July 2013 12:37, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> >> There are certain Rules that limit certain types of speech (e.g. Illegal >> to mislead in >> certain ways, reveal private actions). Are those also unenforceable, you >> think? >> > > No. As you noted yourself, limiting certain kinds of speech does not > infringe on the general right of participation in the fora. But an > agreement prohibiting all communication to the fora - which is what was > contemplated here - carrying with it whatever penalties accrue for > violating agreements, would infringe that right. IMO, of course. > It's also worth pointing out that such an agreement, in addition to infringing on the general right to participate in the fora, would also infringe on the specific right in R101(ii) to seek judicial resolution of controversy. -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I got Rule 101 problems
On 11 July 2013 12:37, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > There are certain Rules that limit certain types of speech (e.g. Illegal > to mislead in > certain ways, reveal private actions). Are those also unenforceable, you > think? > No. As you noted yourself, limiting certain kinds of speech does not infringe on the general right of participation in the fora. But an agreement prohibiting all communication to the fora - which is what was contemplated here - carrying with it whatever penalties accrue for violating agreements, would infringe that right. IMO, of course. -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
DIS: Re: BUS: I got Rule 101 problems
On 11 July 2013 05:13, John Smith wrote: > I CfJ on "Would paying omd to not post on the public forums as part of a > legally binding agreement between myself and omd cause a violation of Rule > 101?" > When you say 'legally binding', are you referring to Agoran, or US law (or the law of some other jurisdiction external to Agora)? With respect to Agoran law, I think omd would have a good case that such an agreement could not succeed in binding him to its terms, unless it was effected by an instrument with Power > 3. That is, I think R101(v) (or even R101(ii)) would protect omd from incurring any Agoran penalties for violating the terms of the agreement. In this I may differ from Goethe, who seems to think it might depend on how severe the penalties were. -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. Machiavelli, CFJ 3357
The legal adequacy of this I will leave to actual players to determine; as a kibitzer I merely wished to note that it is an artistic triumph. Bravo, Fool! On 10 July 2013 11:50, Fool wrote: > > HER FELINE MAJESTY DAVY I > versus > TANNER SWETT (aka MACHIAVELLI) > > > > Charles Walker on behalf of the Crown alleges that Machiavelli failed to > pay a fine ordered by CFJ 3310, wherein the defendant was convicted of > failing to publish an IADoP report, and for which the judgement was, in its > entirety, "GUILTY - FINE (2 VCs)", handed down by Charles Reiss (aka > woggle). > > It seems the Crown in this case presents no further evidence, and > Machiavelli has nothing to say for himself either. So who gets to do the > digging for you? Muggins, eh? > > Very well: it turns out that while the defendant did have quite a few VCs > when 3310 was initiated (April 22), by the time sentence was passed (May > 18, took long enough) all VCs had been reset (May 8), so he had no VCs to > destroy. Nor did he thereafter earn a VC, until proposal 7450 passed (June > 10), and then VCs were reset (June 17). His next VC was from proposal 7477 > (June 29), and this case was initiated 3 days later (July 2). > > I quote Rule 1504: > > When a sentence has been assigned as part of a GUILTY judgement, > the Accused is known as the ninny, and the sentence is in > effect. > > The valid sentences are: > [...] > * FINE with an amount of one class of asset, appropriate for > rule breaches of small consequence. An amount is only valid > if the currency's backing document binds the ninny (the Rules > are considered to bind all players) or the ninny has this > amount of the asset, and the backing document specifies a > maximum FINE amount, and the amount is no greater than the > maximum. When in effect, the ninny SHALL, in a timely > fashion, either destroy this amount of eir asset or transfer > it to the Lost and Found Department. The ninny is only obliged > to perform one destruction or transfer per case, even if > sentences of this type are assigned more than once or go into > effect more than once. > > There are some questions in my mind about this rule, foremost, who wrote > this junk? I suppose this is the Agoran pragmatism that people keep raving > about? Sure, during Agora XX we complained about Agora's initial ruleset, > didn't we, well now, you guys have had twenty years, and this is what you > all came up with ... look, never mind, rule 217 instructs me to apply > common sense and to consider the interests of Agora, and by that standard > it is clear that everyone is guilty here. So I just need to find > appropriate punishments. > > Charles Reiss, for your sentencing antics, I fine you twenty berks (same > as in town), and I haven't bothered to check if you have any berks, nor do > I even know what berks are good for anyway. I just know that if you don't > pay, there'll be trouble. Possibly involving a pointy stick. > > Charles Walker, for making me dig through archives unnecessarily, I > sentence you to print out a hard copy of the agora-official mailing list > from May onward, therewith to beat yourself over the head until you are > cross-eyed. > > Tanner Swett, for starting this mess by not writing a simple report, I > sentence you to three days at a dismal job where you'll be constantly > pestered for totally pointless reports like that guy on Office Space. > > The rest of you, smarten up. Consider yourselves lucky that I'm in a good > mood, because I'm usually a hanging judge. > > This judgement takes effect immediately. Long live the Queen. > --Daniel Mehkeri > > -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: (no subject)
Level confusion, Goethe. The Statement "Roujo committed the Class-3 Crime of Hazing." is not frivolous; it alleges that Roujo frivolously CFJed on the success of a player's attempt to register. On 9 July 2013 10:10, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Tue, 9 Jul 2013, Steven Gardner wrote: > > Let me stress that I'm talking hypothetically. Roujo never actually > called for Judgement (wrong forum, hehe), and so > > did not actually commit the Crime. But I am interested to know what the > Courts would consider a frivolous CFJ in the > > sense of the last paragraph of R869. > > Some context may or may not help at all! > > The registration rule is currently purposefully a little squishy, to > be welcoming, trying to say that it doesn't matter what exact form > a new player uses, as long as intent to register is pretty clear. > Given that squishiness, for a while (maybe still) two things were going > on: > > 1. Some new players (or former players re-registering) would purposefully > try to register in a borderline or clever way that made it worth a CFJ > on whether or not they succeeded - this was also testing what constituted > 'consent' for R101(iii); > > 2. Since this happened a lot, an in-joke that developed was whenever an > "innocent" newbie registered, no matter how clearly, someone would call a > CFJ on whether it succeeded, making the newbie ask what e did wrong. > Calling this "Hazing" was more or less meant to put a stop to this sort of > thing. Basically because the joke was getting a little stale. > > But it's never been prosecuted, maybe it's useless. Or maybe it's a > deterrent. No precedent really. > > You're right that the recent attempt to discussion wasn't at all CFJ- > worthy - I was still half-asleep this morning when I thought it might be > worth a CFJ. I'd call a test case to set a precedent for frivolousness, > but if it were done to be a test case it might no longer be frivolous... > (is that like the Uninteresting Number paradox?) > > -G. > > > > -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: (no subject)
Let me stress that I'm talking hypothetically. Roujo never actually called for Judgement (wrong forum, hehe), and so did not actually commit the Crime. But I am interested to know what the Courts would consider a frivolous CFJ in the sense of the last paragraph of R869. On 9 July 2013 09:26, Steven Gardner wrote: > On 9 July 2013 04:16, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Don't think CFJ about a registration attempt to discussion list is >> frivolous though :P >> > > According to the OED, 'frivolous' has a special legal sense meaning > 'manifestly insufficient or futile'. Since it is well established in law > and precedent -- really, about as well established as anything can be in > Agora -- that messages sent to agora-discussion are ineffective, it seems > to me that further CFJs on the topic are superfluous, and indeed, futile. > > -- > Steve Gardner > Research Grants Development > Faculty of Business and Economics > Monash University, Caulfield campus > Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 > e: steven.gard...@monash.edu > *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on > alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** > > Two facts about lists: > (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; > (2) I can't remember what the other one is. > -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: (no subject)
On 9 July 2013 04:16, Kerim Aydin wrote: Don't think CFJ about a registration attempt to discussion list is > frivolous though :P > According to the OED, 'frivolous' has a special legal sense meaning 'manifestly insufficient or futile'. Since it is well established in law and precedent -- really, about as well established as anything can be in Agora -- that messages sent to agora-discussion are ineffective, it seems to me that further CFJs on the topic are superfluous, and indeed, futile. -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
DIS: Would I be an Elder if I registered?
R2357: An Elder is a first-class player who has been registered continuously for at least 32 days, and also registered for at least 128 days total (not necessarily contiguously). I was registered continuously from 1 July 1994 until 19 June 2004. If I registered now, would I instantly be an Elder? I think I would be, as the Rule is written. If the Rule had meant to prevent this, it should have said ..."registered continuously for 32 days since eir most recent registration, etc." -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: (no subject)
Class-3 Hazing, Roujo?
On 8 July 2013 10:35, Jonathan Rouillard wrote:
> Welcome! =D
>
> I submit the following CFJ to the Ambassador-at-Large: { Lindar is a
> player. }
>
> Arguments: While he claimed intent to register, he did not submit it
> to the right forum. Something something R101, something something
> R2397.
>
> ~ Roujo
>
> On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 8:15 PM, Lindar Greenwood
> wrote:
> > I register. I support Fool's intent to found the Serious party, and I do
> so.
>
--
Steve Gardner
Research Grants Development
Faculty of Business and Economics
Monash University, Caulfield campus
Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486
e: steven.gard...@monash.edu
*** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate
Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). ***
Two facts about lists:
(1) one can never remember the last item on any list;
(2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: Re: irc reminder
ok, got it now. only oerjan around though atm. No surprise, really. On 7 July 2013 21:00, Steven Gardner wrote: > OK, I think I've joined ##nomic, but I can't see a way to chat. > > > On 7 July 2013 14:23, Alex Smith wrote: > >> On Sat, 2013-07-06 at 21:13 -0700, Aaron Goldfein wrote: >> > On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Alex Smith wrote: >> > > On Sun, 2013-07-07 at 13:45 +1000, Steven Gardner wrote: >> > >> I intend to be around for this chat session, in a little under 7.5 >> hours' >> > >> time. Can someone please remind me how to join this session? I don't >> really >> > >> grok irc. >> > > >> > > The easiest way if you don't understand IRC is via a web client. >> Here's >> > > a link for ##nomic: >> > > >> > > http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=%23nomic >> > > >> > > Pick a nickname (that isn't already in use), solve the CAPTCHA, click >> > > Connect. >> > > >> > > -- >> > > ais523 >> > >> > Except that the channel is ##nomic, not #nomic. >> >> Hmm. Freenode gave me that URL themselves, but presumably got confused, >> or possibly I made a typo and didn't notice. >> >> I guess http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=%23%23nomic is more likely >> to work, following the obvious URL pattern. >> >> -- >> ais523 >> >> > > > -- > Steve Gardner > Research Grants Development > Faculty of Business and Economics > Monash University, Caulfield campus > Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 > e: steven.gard...@monash.edu > *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on > alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** > > Two facts about lists: > (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; > (2) I can't remember what the other one is. > -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: Re: irc reminder
OK, I think I've joined ##nomic, but I can't see a way to chat. On 7 July 2013 14:23, Alex Smith wrote: > On Sat, 2013-07-06 at 21:13 -0700, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > > > On Sun, 2013-07-07 at 13:45 +1000, Steven Gardner wrote: > > >> I intend to be around for this chat session, in a little under 7.5 > hours' > > >> time. Can someone please remind me how to join this session? I don't > really > > >> grok irc. > > > > > > The easiest way if you don't understand IRC is via a web client. Here's > > > a link for ##nomic: > > > > > > http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=%23nomic > > > > > > Pick a nickname (that isn't already in use), solve the CAPTCHA, click > > > Connect. > > > > > > -- > > > ais523 > > > > Except that the channel is ##nomic, not #nomic. > > Hmm. Freenode gave me that URL themselves, but presumably got confused, > or possibly I made a typo and didn't notice. > > I guess http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=%23%23nomic is more likely > to work, following the obvious URL pattern. > > -- > ais523 > > -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: Re: irc reminder
Thanks, Alex and Aaron. Will anyone else be there? It's a shocking time for Americans. On 7 July 2013 14:13, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Sun, 2013-07-07 at 13:45 +1000, Steven Gardner wrote: > >> I intend to be around for this chat session, in a little under 7.5 > hours' > >> time. Can someone please remind me how to join this session? I don't > really > >> grok irc. > > > > The easiest way if you don't understand IRC is via a web client. Here's > > a link for ##nomic: > > > > http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=%23nomic > > > > Pick a nickname (that isn't already in use), solve the CAPTCHA, click > > Connect. > > > > -- > > ais523 > > Except that the channel is ##nomic, not #nomic. > -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
DIS: Re: irc reminder
I intend to be around for this chat session, in a little under 7.5 hours' time. Can someone please remind me how to join this session? I don't really grok irc. On 5 July 2013 06:02, Charles Walker wrote: > There will be an irc session in ##nomic (hopefully with a few > old-timers) at 1100 UTC, Sunday 7th July. > > Bring your best Agoran history trivia! > > -- Walker > -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
RE: DIS: Agora XX: 13th and final report
My dim recollection is that it took a kind of high level scam (in the sense of loophole exploitation, there was no attempt to win) to move away from the Mutable/Immutable distinction. But we didn't get straight to the Power system - that came later. The intermediate stage involved the definition of a class of 'Semimutable' rules. A loophole permitted these to take precedence over the Immutable Rules, and hence (temporarily) to amend Immutable Rules with less than unanimous support. -- Steve Gardner via mobile On 2 Jul 2013 09:16, "Ørjan Johansen" wrote: > On Mon, 1 Jul 2013, Chuck Carroll wrote: > > I also have an idea or two about how a group of players could get around >> the >> requirement of unanimity for making a rule mutable against a single player >> determined to prevent all such transmutations. >> > > My vague memory is that something like that is how Agora got its > Mutable/Immutable distinction changed into the Power system - I think there > were no votes requiring unanimity involved. > > Greetings, > Ørjan.
Re: DIS: XX/ Birthday irc chat logs
I read the chat logs, and found in it the link to Michael Norrish's Nomic World page, and so the summaries I wrote of the first six games (which turned out to be the only six games) of Nomic World, which I hadn't thought about for 20 years. That was a blast! The reason that Nomic World died was that Geoff, who was both the programmer of the MUD, and a player, had the responsibility for keeping the programming of Nomic World up to date with what its Rules said it should be. Eg every time someone changed the scoring rules, Geoff had to write code to reflect those rules. In the end it all got too much for him and he just announced that he wouldn't do it any more. Really, nobody could have. In retrospect it was an obviously stupid idea. Some years later, I guess around 1996, there was some interest in moving Agora (back) into a MUD environment, Shattered World (another MUD in which Geoff had a major role). The game seemed to be flagging a bit and it was thought that existing as a kind of autonomous republic within a virtual world with its own relatively stable 'reality' which we couldn't directly effect, including its own map, economy, creatures, etc. might give us some interesting things to think about. But it came to nothing in the end. On 1 July 2013 23:44, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Mon, 1 Jul 2013, Charles Walker wrote: > > If anyone wants them, let me know. > > > > -- Walker > > > > Same here - yes please! -G. > > > > -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: XX/ Birthday irc chat logs
Yes, please. -- Steve Gardner via mobile On 1 Jul 2013 19:33, "Charles Walker" wrote: > If anyone wants them, let me know. > > -- Walker >
Re: DIS: Agora XX: 13th and final report
On 1 July 2013 14:35, Chuck Carroll wrote: > ** ** > > Thanks to all the players, especially my fellow winners, and many many > thanks to Fool for running such an enjoyable game. Like others have > mentioned, I like the idea of a Nomic with a defined endpoint (being well > aware, of course, that there is no guarantee that the endpoint will remain > unchanged) in which I can most likely play for just a few weeks. I don't > have time to participate in a long-term Nomic now, but would enjoy playing > again for just a few weeks on occasion. > > ** > I'm with Chuck here. I can't commit long term to nomic, but would enjoy playing like this again once in a while. Same time again next year? Maybe using the Initial Set Charles Walker is working on? I like the idea of making the fortnight before the moment of Agora's Birthday an Agoran Holiday, to free up all Agorans to participate in a blitz game. Steve -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: 13th and final report
On 1 July 2013 03:14, Fool wrote: > > There was some talk of legalism/logicism or idealism/pragmatism. Maybe > relative to the group I'm very far off one end of these scales. I also > expect the question of _objectives_ made a big difference. On the last > turn, a fairly large coalition simply voted themselves joint winners. I'm > curious _when_ did this coalition form? And generally, to what extent were > people trying to win? > I didn't find out about Agora XX until June 24 when Blob alerted me to it -- I didn't receive Yally's email to the ancients. I sent the following message to Goethe shortly after I registered: From: Steven Gardner > Date: 25 June 2013 09:18 > Subject: What is to be done? > To: ke...@u.washington.edu > > Hi Kerim. Or perhaps that should be Goethe. > I have no plans at all, and really no idea what is going on, but I feel > like we should be conspiring to do something, just for old times' sake. > The main thing I can think of to do is of course to try and win Agora XX. > My only idea so far is try and get a proposal adopted just before the game > ends to amend the scoring rule to declare, say, you, me, Chuck, Murphy and > Michael the winners of Agora XX. Five votes might be enough in blitz nomic. > But if you've any better ideas you need co-conspirators for, count me in. > Steve So the basic idea to try and win and the outlines of how to do it was there from the beginning -- not very stylish, but acceptable given there were only 5 days to go. Personally, I'm a big fan of the Win by Paradox; I've always thought it's the most stylish way to win, and the method most resonant wit the deep spirit of the game. After all, Suber called his book the 'The Paradox of Self-Amendment'; love of paradox obviously runs deep in the game's inventor. I sent this message to all six old timers on 26 June: From: Steven Gardner > Date: 26 June 2013 13:49 > Subject: Re: For Old Time(r)s' Sake > To: Malcolm Ryan > Cc: games...@chuckcarroll.org, Kerim Aydin , > michael.norr...@nicta.com.au, emurph...@socal.rr.com > > My only plan at the moment is to put up proposal to enact or amend a rule > to declare us the winners. There are, at least potentially, 6 of us, and > with a 24 hour voting period, that might be enough. From a tactical > standpoint, we also need to think about how to vote on proposals being made > by others which affect our chances of success. For example, amending rules > is tricky when they keep changing numbers! For another example, proposal to > extend the game beyond June 30 might complicate matters. > Of course I'd prefer to win by by paradox - much more stylish. My instinct > is to start with the judicial system - tie that up in logical knots and it > becomes impossible to determine the game state - but I've no concrete ideas > about how to do that, particularly not in 3 or 4 days. > Let's spend the next 24-36 hours exploring ideas. Then we can settle on a > plan. To my surprise and delight, Chuck almost immediately discovered the germ of an idea for a plausible Win By Paradox. I would have been very happy to see Chuck declared sole winner in this fashion. But Walker and Michael patiently and ingeniously picked apart his argument. In a fascinating sideline, which Michael pointed out to us in a private message, the path to a win by paradox remained open even after Michael's Judgement on Chuck's second CFJ. As Michael pointed out in his Judgement, Chuck's idea was basically sound, it's just that Chuck had made his move too early, when the relevant rule defining the end of voting periods was the old 205, not the new 333. So a new CFJ, referring to the close of the voting periods of proposals 348-362, might have worked. My final comment on this intricate passage of play is that it also might not have worked. It would have been open to the Speaker to try and 'collapse the game state', a manouevre with a long history in Agora Nomic going back to its early Platonic days, though I'm not sure it has been needed for many years since pragmatism was written so deeply into Agora's ruleset. The set of voters on proposals 348-362 was nearly identical for each of those proposals; there were only minor variations. So the Speaker could have tried identifying each of the different possible sets of Judges for such a CFJ, and rolling a die for each such set. If the same Judge is selected in each of the 'legally possible worlds', then voila! -- instant gamestate collapse, and the legality of selecting that Judge could be determined with finality after all. Alas, all this remained, as they say in chess, 'in the notes'. Steve -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield
Re: DIS: Birthday message from Peter Suber
Would love to, but time to get up and make breakfast for the boys. -- Steve Gardner via mobile On 1 Jul 2013 08:37, "Charles Walker" wrote: > On 30 June 2013 23:32, Steven Gardner wrote: > > From: "Peter Suber" > > Date: 1 Jul 2013 07:13 > > Subject: Re: Agora Nomic celebrates 20 years > > To: "Steven Gardner" > > Cc: > > > >> > >> > >> Dear Agoranomicists, > >> > >> Congratulations on your 20 year game of Nomic. To my knowledge, you're > >> taking part in the longest-running game of Nomic anywhere. More, it > must be > >> one of the longest-running games of any kind. I've heard of > chess-by-mail > >> contests lasting for years, but slow games are not the same as rich > games > >> and can't compare to your record of 7,000+ proposals and 3,000+ calls > for > >> judgment. > >> > >> I admire your dedication and persistence, and I'm grateful for the > living > >> proof that Nomic has the depth, texture, and complexity to hold the > interest > >> of so many interesting people for so long. Bravo to all of you, and > here's > >> to another 20 years! > >> > >> All the best, > >> Peter > > Awesome! > > Steve, we're still in irc if you're interested. > > -- Walker >
DIS: Birthday message from Peter Suber
From: "Peter Suber" Date: 1 Jul 2013 07:13 Subject: Re: Agora Nomic celebrates 20 years To: "Steven Gardner" Cc: > > > Dear Agoranomicists, > > Congratulations on your 20 year game of Nomic. To my knowledge, you're taking part in the longest-running game of Nomic anywhere. More, it must be one of the longest-running games of any kind. I've heard of chess-by-mail contests lasting for years, but slow games are not the same as rich games and can't compare to your record of 7,000+ proposals and 3,000+ calls for judgment. > > I admire your dedication and persistence, and I'm grateful for the living proof that Nomic has the depth, texture, and complexity to hold the interest of so many interesting people for so long. Bravo to all of you, and here's to another 20 years! > > All the best, > Peter > > Peter Suber > bit.ly/petersuber >
Re: DIS: Agora XX: 13th and final report
Wait though: 9pm in Melbourne is 11am in London, but 4am in Los Angeles and 7am in New York. Fine for Europeans, but terrible for Americans. Aren't most of the currently registered Agoran players Americans? On 1 July 2013 00:02, Charles Walker wrote: > On 30 June 2013 14:48, Steven Gardner wrote: > > For my part, 9pm local time (1100 UTC), after the kids are in bed, is > when > > I'm more likely to have time to chat. > > > > But tomorrow (Monday) night I'll probably be out seeing a friend, and > > Tuesday I'm leaving for a family holiday for 5 days and I'm unlikely to > have > > internet access. So unless you're willing to wait until next 1100 UTC > Sunday > > night (7 July), you'd best leave me out of your plans. > > I don't see why we shouldn't wait (while still going ahead with the > session tonight), especially as most people are more likely to be free > on weekends. > > Is this acceptable to most people? Michael? Blob? > > -- Walker > -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: 13th and final report
For my part, 9pm local time (1100 UTC), after the kids are in bed, is when I'm more likely to have time to chat. But tomorrow (Monday) night I'll probably be out seeing a friend, and Tuesday I'm leaving for a family holiday for 5 days and I'm unlikely to have internet access. So unless you're willing to wait until next 1100 UTC Sunday night (7 July), you'd best leave me out of your plans. Steve On 30 June 2013 22:34, Charles Walker wrote: > On 30 Jun 2013, at 13:01, Michael Norrish > wrote: > > Now in the same Australian time-zone as Blob and Steve, rather than the > > Wellington zone that I was in when the game began, I'm afraid the IRC > > chat due in 9 hours from now is not likely to see me involved. > > As that makes three of the four old-timer winners who are not still > players of Agora, I think it would be a good idea to organise another irc > session and save all the historical chat for that one. Would you like to > suggest a time? > > By the way, Yally, would it be possible to publish a list of which email > addresses of former players are still working, based on the mass message > you sent out? > > -- Walker > > -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: 13th and final report
On 29 June 2013 22:37, Fool wrote: > It has been my pleasure to be your Speaker for this bit of fast-paced > nonsense. I discharge my last formal duty by including the final ruleset > below. I will also post an end-of-game statement, and I encourage other > players to do likewise. > > Thanks for playing guys. And happy birthday Agora! > First of all: Happy 20th Birthday, Agora! Thanks to all the current players of Agora for playing the game and helping it to reach this milestone. Thanks also to the organisers of Agora XX: chiefly (I think) Aaron Goldfein for his message to many former players, and to our most Honourable (now ex-) Speaker Fool, for doing a terrific and meticulous job as Speaker. Thanks to my fellow Old Timers and co-conspirators, Blob, Chuck, Ed, Goethe and Michael. I had great fun conspiring with you. I think in Chuck's case that despite all our (eleven?) years playing together in Agora, this might be the first time we ever worked together on the same side of a conspiracy! Thanks also to Oerjan, for voting for 364 though there was nothing in it for him. Extra thanks to Blob for passing Aaron's message along to me -- for some reason it wasn't sent to me directly. Agora XX is the first nomic of any description I have played since I left Agora in late 2003. I enjoyed it more than I expected to. A very unusual, maybe unique, feature of this game was the combination of the very fast timer and the defined endpoint - almost like over the table play. This made the tactics interesting. Charles Walker, I'd be interested to see you the ruleset you've been working on. Would you mind sending me a copy? I'd be happy to offer you ideas (if I have any ideas) for you to use or ignore as you please. Cheers, Steve -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: irc session reminder (XX players may be interested)
Much as I'd love to chat with you all over irc, that's 7am Monday morning Melbourne time, so I won't be able to join you :( On 30 June 2013 00:03, Charles Walker wrote: > There will be an irc session in celebration of Agora's birthday in the > ##nomic channel on Sunday 30th June (tomorrow) starting at 21:00 UTC. > > The idea is to have a free flowing chat about Agora, its history and nomic > in general between current and former players. I imagine there will also be > people wanting to talk about Agora XX. > > I will also be running a session of high speed nomic over irc. The inital > ruleset will be published on this mailing list at the start of the session. > > Information about the channel and a link to a web client is available on > Agora's homepage, agoranomic.org > > -- Walker > -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: Boo!
Hi Wes! And how are you? -- Steve Gardner via mobile On 29 Jun 2013 11:44, "Wes Contreras" wrote: > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Steven Gardner > wrote: > > > > Hello old friend! I thought of you several times today. How are you? > > It's like a reunion. > > > --Wes > (Who is now back from a week of travel with no time) >
Re: DIS: Agora XX: 12th report
Gratuitous arguments: 1. By this logic, I could claim that any event in the game - for example, this CFJ being judged FALSE, or my own failure to win the game - constitutes a penalty worse than losing and so cannot be imposed. 2. Even accepting that the loss of the game is a humiliation worse than losing, the CFJ has the wrong object. Making the proposal itself does not effect this. First the proposal has to pass. -- Steve Gardner via mobile
DIS: Agora XX: Call for Judgement
I call for Judgement on the following statement: Blob has not forfeited. Arguments: Punishing Blob with forfeiture for the failure of proposal 346 to pass is a retroactive application of R345, and is thus blocked by R108. This is so because R345 was not in effect when Blob proposed P346. -- Steve Gardner via mobile
Re: DIS: Agora XX: 11th report
Firstly, I think you're missing the point about injustice, Dan. Secondly, the first part of the Canadian charter you quote is the relevant bit here, not the second. And that part supports my argument. -- Steve Gardner via mobile On 29 Jun 2013 09:14, "Fool" wrote: > On 28/06/2013 9:42 AM, Steven Gardner wrote: > >> >> The point of a ban on retroactive application of a rule, especially one >> which, like R345, criminalises a certain action, is to avoid a >> particularly galling kind of injustice: namely, that people do things >> which they rightly believe at the time are legal according to the rules >> at the time they perform them, but which are then retrospectively deemed >> to have been illegal and for which they are then punished. This is >> exactly the case here. Blob proposed 346 at a time when making proposals >> was without the risk of forfeiture. Imposing R345's punishment on em is >> a textbook example of the kind of thing that a ban on retroactive >> application of a rule is meant to disallow. >> >> > I don't think this interpretation fits R108. > > The legal right you are talking about is something like this: > > "... [the right] not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission > unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under > Canadian or international law ... if found guilty of the offence and if the > punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission > and the time of sentencing, [the right] to the benefit of the lesser > punishment." > > (Canadian Charter of Rights, sec 11) > > This _does_ actually allow retroactive application of rules in the sense > that you're talking about, if it works in favour of the accused. > > -Dan >
DIS: Agora XX: votes
H. Speaker, I currently have 277 points. Am I tempted to sit tight and try for the individual win? Not for a moment. I cast 5 additional votes for proposal 364, thereby destroying 250 points. -- Steve Gardner via mobile
Re: DIS: Boo!
Hello old friend! I thought of you several times today. How are you? On 28 June 2013 23:58, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > Sometimes you just have to be there. > > Greetings, > Ørjan. -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: 11th report
On 28 June 2013 10:47, Fool wrote: > On 27/06/2013 8:43 PM, Steven Gardner wrote: > >> On 28 June 2013 10:36, Fool > <mailto:fool1...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> In this case, the effect was your forfeiture (or requirement to >> forfeit). It was based on events that occurred prior, but the effect >> was not retroactive. >> >> >> I disagree. R345 describes a sequence of actions that lead to >> forfeiture. To avoid retroactive application, the entire sequence of >> events has to begin after R345 takes effect. >> >> >> Well, we've been doing that right from the start. With points rather than > forfeiture, but same idea. It was explicitly ruled that this did not > violate R108. (This might also have been the first CFJ in Agora itself.) > > The point of a ban on retroactive application of a rule, especially one which, like R345, criminalises a certain action, is to avoid a particularly galling kind of injustice: namely, that people do things which they rightly believe at the time are legal according to the rules at the time they perform them, but which are then retrospectively deemed to have been illegal and for which they are then punished. This is exactly the case here. Blob proposed 346 at a time when making proposals was without the risk of forfeiture. Imposing R345's punishment on em is a textbook example of the kind of thing that a ban on retroactive application of a rule is meant to disallow. -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: 11th report
You'll have to forgive me if I say things which seem obvious -- please remember that I've been away for 9 years and no longer know what is common knowledge. I think the most basic insight is that events (such things as making proposals, voting, transferring units of whatever media of exchange are defined by the Rules, the gain or loss of various legally relevant properties, and so on) occur as the result of messages sent by persons (one would like to say 'players', but there's registration to consider). As a design principle, rules should not cause events to occur - the danger in their doing so is that events occur without anyone noticing so that vast swathes of game play can in retrospect seem to have been illegal. Instead, well designed rules restrict themselves only to defining the permissions, prohibitions and obligations on persons to send messages of various kinds. The challenge for designing a terse and elegant initial ruleset for mailing-list based play is to define 'event', 'message', 'send', 'publish', 'permit', 'require', 'prohibit', etc in the simplest and sparsest way. Suber designed his Initial Set for over the table play, so these issues simply never came up for him. That is why initial rulesets based largely on his initial set are actually very poorly designed for mailing-list based play. On 28 June 2013 22:27, Charles Walker wrote: > On 28 June 2013 05:49, Steven Gardner wrote: > > What I'd be looking for is a ruleset which fixes bugs likes changing rule > > numbers, defines simultaneity, incorporates some lessons about > pragmatism in > > a minimally committal way and generally leaves the rest open for players > to > > explore politics and law and not bug-fixes and mechanics. > > I've actually started the project you suggest of designing an ideal > inital ruleset for blitz style play. > > I would be interested to read how you might phrase your "lessons about > pragmatism". > > -- Walker > -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
DIS: Agora XX: For Old Timers' Sake
H. Speaker, I submit the following Proposal: === If there is exactly one Rule which was initially numbered 112, then that Rule is amended to Read: > The game ends at 00:04:30 UTC +1200 on June 30th, 2013, or at the time when all adopted proposals whose voting periods concluded before that time take effect, whichever is later. > > If Blob previously forfeited, then e is reinstated as a player, any rule to the contrary notwithstanding. > > The Winners of the game are Blob, Chuck, Ed, Goethe, Michael and Steve. === -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu ** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). ** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: 11th report
I just came across my old Thesis, which I'd completely forgotten about, "The concept of a 'rule change' in Peter Suber's Initial Set". Like everyone else, we seem to have assumed that the claim labelled (*) in the Thesis is false. It's be interesting to design an initial set which clears up the conceptual haziness around exactly what a 'rule change' is. ftp://ftp.cse.unsw.edu.au/pub/users/malcolmr/nomic/articles/agora-theses/lib-steve2.html On 28 June 2013 15:20, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Fri, 28 Jun 2013, Steven Gardner wrote: > > What I'd be looking for is a ruleset which fixes bugs likes changing > rule numbers, defines simultaneity, incorporates > > some lessons about pragmatism in a minimally committal way and generally > leaves the rest open for players to explore > > politics and law and not bug-fixes and mechanics. > > I was wondering on the advantages of that versus an identical ruleset > with a stated set of "judge's precedents" that the Speaker could > "recommend" would guide decisions. > > E.g.: > "In this game, things [do/don't] happen simultaneously, > forfeiture means you [do/don't] quit immediately, etc." > > Also, I wonder in Blitz if it's worth saying "if there's a paradox, > nobody wins, everyone loses". Just cut the incentive for non-pragmatism > way down. > > > > > -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: 11th report
On 28 June 2013 14:18, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Steven Gardner > wrote: > > It would be an interesting project to design a terse and elegant, > non-buggy > > set of initial Rules suitable playing blitz nomic on a mailing list. > > Or we could just squash all the bugs and continue where we left off > last year. Ideal blitz ruleset via evolution. > That's a different project. I don't think anyone believes that any nomic, once it starts evolving from its initial state, evolves towards an ideal *initial* state. What I'd be looking for is a ruleset which fixes bugs likes changing rule numbers, defines simultaneity, incorporates some lessons about pragmatism in a minimally committal way and generally leaves the rest open for players to explore politics and law and not bug-fixes and mechanics. Steve -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: 11th report
It would be an interesting project to design a terse and elegant, non-buggy set of initial Rules suitable playing blitz nomic on a mailing list. On 28 June 2013 13:37, Malcolm Ryan wrote: > Yes, this is definitely a problem with the "return to the original rules" > idea. The original rules had a lot of bugs. If this just means revisiting > those bugs every year, I'm not keen. > > Blob > > On 28/06/2013, at 11:47 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, 27 Jun 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> On Fri, 28 Jun 2013, Malcolm Ryan wrote: > >>> Aand we return to the old Platonic vs Pragmatic debate. > >> > >> that has plagued Agora for a looong time... > > > > Oh, and remind me next year to come up with a Drinking Game for > > observers. > > > > 1. Drink if platonic versus pragmatic comes up. > > 2. Drink if there's a question of email identity. > > 3. Chug if there's a debate about whether things in the same > > message are "simultaneous". > > ... > > > > > > > > > > -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: Agora XX CORRECTION: Proposal 344 failed.
Nothing in the Rules, perhaps, except for the provision in R217 which states that game custom is one of two standards to be applied before others where the rules are unclear. On 28 June 2013 11:38, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Fool wrote: > > Argh ** > > > > Yes, Chuck did privately vote against 344. And no, Walker did vote > against, > > he changed his public for to a private against about 9 hours later. > > > > So it's actually 4:4, fail, we're back to rule 343. Yally did not get 10 > > points for proposing 344. Walker, Goethe, and omd did not get 5 points > for > > voting against 344. > > > > Here are the votes I have recorded. > > > > Jun 26 08:55 Walker public vote FOR [CANCELLED] > >10:11 ehird public vote FOR [CANCELLED] > >12:13 ehird public vote FOR > >12:26 Steve public vote FOR > >13:20 Michael public vote FOR > >14:12 Roujo public vote INVALID > >17:56 Walker private vote AGAINST > > 27 01:19 Yally public vote FOR > >02:42 Goethe public vote AGAINST > >03:44 Chuck private vote AGAINST > >11:20 omd private vote AGAINST > > > > I have no idea how I got Chuck in the FOR column. Officially, I'll just > > blame Roujo and his stunt voting for confusing me. > > > > Sorry about that folks! > > -Dan > > > > PS: here's the actual rule > > > > -- > > > > Rule 343 (Mutable) > > > > The game shall end immediately following the end of the voting period > > on any proposals which were submitted by 00:04:30 GMT +1200 June 29, > > 2013, and the adoption of any rule changes caused by such proposals, > > and all Voters having a score greater than the median score among > > Voters shall win. > > > > History: > > Initial Immutable Rule 112, Jun. 30 1993 > > Amended for Vigintennial by decree, Jun. 17 2013 > > Transmuted by Proposal 311 (omd), Jun. 23 2013 > > Amended by Proposal 326 (Chuck), Jun. 24 2013 > > Amended by Proposal 342 (Chuck), Jun. 26 2013 > > Amended by Proposal 343 (Chuck), Jun. 26 2013 > > [NOT Amended by Proposal 344 (Yally), Jun. 27 2013 -- MISREPORTED] > > > > -- > > I call for judgement on the statement "a player can change eir vote." > Nothing in the rules support the notion that this is possible, or > allow for removing of votes. Instead, the rules claim each player gets > a single vote. Walker's initial vote should therefore have been his > sole vote and nothing else he attempted should have counted as a vote. > Thus, this proposal passed. > -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: 11th report
I'd say e remains a player with full rights to continue to play up until the moment e forfeits. On 28 June 2013 10:50, Fool wrote: > On 27/06/2013 8:37 PM, Steven Gardner wrote: > >> The argument (setting aside the retroactivity claim) is that Blob was >> immediately required to forfeit. Not doing so would to be sure be >> violation of the Rules, but it still can't happen unless Blob sends a >> message say that e forfeits. >> > > Okay, for the sake of argument: if he's required to forfeit *immediately*, > and instead he, for example, attempts to vote, then he's violating the > rules. Correct? > > -Dan > -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: 11th report
On 28 June 2013 10:36, Fool wrote: > > In this case, the effect was your forfeiture (or requirement to forfeit). > It was based on events that occurred prior, but the effect was not > retroactive. > I disagree. R345 describes a sequence of actions that lead to forfeiture. To avoid retroactive application, the entire sequence of events has to begin after R345 takes effect. Steve -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: 11th report
The argument (setting aside the retroactivity claim) is that Blob was immediately required to forfeit. Not doing so would to be sure be violation of the Rules, but it still can't happen unless Blob sends a message say that e forfeits. On 28 June 2013 10:32, Fool wrote: > On 27/06/2013 8:19 PM, Malcolm Ryan wrote: > >> I call for judgment on the following statement: >> >> "At the 12:16am GMT on June 28 2013, Blob had not forfeited." >> >> Reasoning: The rules make it clear that forfeiting is a voluntary player >> action. Rule 345 says a player "must" forfeit. It does not say that they >> "are deemed to have forfeited". >> >> Blob >> >> > Must "immediately" forfeit, I'm afraid... > > -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: Attn Speaker: Please re-check votes on 344!
Given that Charles Walker did vote FOR, it doesn't matter if Chuck did vote AGAINST. On 28 June 2013 00:00, Steven Gardner wrote: > Charles Walker voted FOR and his vote is not recorded; Speaker Fool may > have confused the two 'Charles's. I've no record of Chuck voting on this > proposal publically, but e may of course have done so privately. > > > On 27 June 2013 23:48, wrote: > >> > Proposal 344 (Yally) passes 5:3 with ehird, Steve, Michael, Yally, and >> > Chuck FOR; Walker, Goethe, and omd AGAINST. This amends rule 343. It >> > basically restores this poor rule to the original winning condition >> > (most points), and adds a clause to resume the game next year. Yally >> > gets 10 points by 332(a), Walker, Goethe, and omd get 5 by 332(b). >> > ehird, Steve, Yally, Chuck, Walker, and omd get 5 by 332(c) since the >> > last time they got points was 24 hours ago. >> >> >> I'm pretty sure I voted against 344 - could you double-check that? (Alas, >> I'm not currently at the location I'd need to be to access my copies of >> outgoing mail, so I'm slightly less than 100% sure, but will be able to >> check later.) >> >> Chuck >> >> >> > > > -- > Steve Gardner > Research Grants Development > Faculty of Business and Economics > Monash University, Caulfield campus > Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 > e: steven.gard...@monash.edu > *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on > alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** > > Two facts about lists: > (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; > (2) I can't remember what the other one is. > -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: Attn Speaker: Please re-check votes on 344!
Charles Walker voted FOR and his vote is not recorded; Speaker Fool may have confused the two 'Charles's. I've no record of Chuck voting on this proposal publically, but e may of course have done so privately. On 27 June 2013 23:48, wrote: > > Proposal 344 (Yally) passes 5:3 with ehird, Steve, Michael, Yally, and > > Chuck FOR; Walker, Goethe, and omd AGAINST. This amends rule 343. It > > basically restores this poor rule to the original winning condition > > (most points), and adds a clause to resume the game next year. Yally > > gets 10 points by 332(a), Walker, Goethe, and omd get 5 by 332(b). > > ehird, Steve, Yally, Chuck, Walker, and omd get 5 by 332(c) since the > > last time they got points was 24 hours ago. > > > I'm pretty sure I voted against 344 - could you double-check that? (Alas, > I'm not currently at the location I'd need to be to access my copies of > outgoing mail, so I'm slightly less than 100% sure, but will be able to > check later.) > > Chuck > > > -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: proposals 348-362
Some notes of my own on proposals 348-352: On 27 June 2013 23:28, Fool wrote: > 348 (Steve): > > > Amend Rule 207 to read: > > > > Voters may vote either for or against any proposal within its > > prescribed voting period. Only messages which clearly and explicitly > > indicate a player's intention to vote for or against a proposal > > (using those words or unambiguous synonyms) are legal votes. In > > order to be legally cast, the vote must be received by the Speaker > > by the end of the prescribed voting period. The Speaker may not > > reveal any votes until the end of the prescribed voting period. Any > > Voter who does not legally vote within the prescribed voting period > > shall be deemed to have abstained. > Gives legal effect to my recent judgement, and makes sure the Speaker doesn't have to perform twisty calculations to determine the truth values of the conditions on conditional votes. > > > 349(Steve): > > > Enact a new Rule which reads: > > > > In recognition of eir sterling service to the game of Agora XX, the > > Speaker is awarded 10 points when this Rule comes into effect. > > 350 (Steve): > > Enact a new Rule which reads: > > > > In recognition of eir sterling service to the game of Agora XX, the > > Speaker is awarded 10 points when this Rule comes into effect. > The first Rule removes the Speaker's negative score, the second gives em a positive score. E deserves it. > > 351(Steve): > > > Amend Rule 344, or the Rule which formerly had that number if there is > > exactly one such Rule, to read: > > > > The game shall end on June 30th at 00:04:30 UTC +1200, or at the > > time when all proposals whose voting periods concluded before that > > time take effect, whichever is later. The Winner of the game is the > > Voter with most points when the game ends; in case of a tie, all > > such Voters shall win simultaneously. At this time, no game actions > > may be taken and all timers shall pause. Each year on June 1st at > > 00:00 UTC the game shall resume and each player shall have eir > > points set to 0. At this time game actions may again be taken and > > all timers shall resume. > This means that the last btach of proposals in the game can still take effect, even if for some reason the Speaker isn;t able to announce the results of the voting on them until after the deadline. It preserves Yally's innovation of having the game restart each year (which is interesting). > > 352 (Steve): > > > Repeal Rule 340. > Tidying up. -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: Re: Agora XX: Scavenger addition
Bravo, Goethe! Agora XX is wildly exceeding my expectations for it! Steve On 27 June 2013 23:25, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Some comments on this set of proposals: > > 1. I believe each one refers to a well-defined set of entities, > for which I have straightforward links (out of my control) that > should provide enough evidence to determine the answers. I will > publish the list right after the results of voting on these. All > of these are on public lists that Agorans are reasonably likely > to be aware of. > > 2. I believe every current player of Agora XX is referred to in > at least one of the proposals. Some more than once. > > 3. I genuinely tried to be balanced in the number of times > current players are on those proposals. I was rushed (stupid sleep > thing!) so I was a few questions short and it is slightly > unbalanced in the end. > > 4. Mini-contest: If I am able (i.e. I am not knocked out of the > game), I will give half my points resulting from these proposals > to the first person to privately send me a complete list of the > entities referred to in these proposals. If no one gets them all, > then I'll award to the person who sends me the most complete list, > with award amount pro-rated for number of missing entities. > > > > On Thu, 27 Jun 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I submit the following set of proposals: > > > -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: 11th report
On 27 June 2013 22:38, Fool wrote: > > If I receive any proposals promptly, I will distribute. H. Speaker, I submit the following Proposals, separated by '==='. === Amend Rule 207 to read: Voters may vote either for or against any proposal within its prescribed voting period. Only messages which clearly and explicitly indicate a player's intention to vote for or against a proposal (using those words or unambiguous synonyms) are legal votes. In order to be legally cast, the vote must be received by the Speaker by the end of the prescribed voting period. The Speaker may not reveal any votes until the end of the prescribed voting period. Any Voter who does not legally vote within the prescribed voting period shall be deemed to have abstained. === Enact a new Rule which reads: In recognition of eir sterling service to the game of Agora XX, the Speaker is awarded 10 points when this Rule comes into effect. === Enact a new Rule which reads: In recognition of eir sterling service to the game of Agora XX, the Speaker is awarded 10 points when this Rule comes into effect. === Amend Rule 344, or the Rule which formerly had that number if there is exactly one such Rule, to read: The game shall end on June 30th at 00:04:30 UTC +1200, or at the time when all proposals whose voting periods concluded before that time take effect, whichever is later. The Winner of the game is the Voter with most points when the game ends; in case of a tie, all such Voters shall win simultaneously. At this time, no game actions may be taken and all timers shall pause. Each year on June 1st at 00:00 UTC the game shall resume and each player shall have eir points set to 0. At this time game actions may again be taken and all timers shall resume. === Repeal Rule 340. === -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ assigned to Michael
It'll be interesting if Michael rules that this statement is FALSE, on the ground that the selection of a Judge for the earlier statement (and by extension, his own selection as Judge) can be shown to be illegal. On 27 June 2013 21:11, Fool wrote: > On 26/06/2013 11:29 PM, Chuck Carroll wrote: > >> I invoke judgement on the following statement: The assignment of Walker as >> Judge for the statement "The selection of a Judge for this statement is a >> move whose legality cannot be determined with finality" is a move whose >> legality cannot be determined with finality. >> > > And I roll my virtual 8-sided die and assign this to. Michael. > You have 24 hours. > > (Michael didn't vote on 341, but he did vote on 343, which closed before > Chuck raised this new CFJ. 344-347 close in about an hour, report then.) > > -Dan > > > >> Reasoning: same as before. This is just to cover the possibility, as omd >> brought up, that "move" in the context of Rule 219 might mean only an >> actual >> or at least attempted move, and not merely a hypothetical move (as the >> assignment of a Judge was at the time of the previous CFJ). >> >> Chuck >> >> -Original Message- >> From: agora-discussion >> [mailto:agora-discussion-**boun...@agoranomic.org] >> On >> Behalf Of Fool >> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 9:10 PM >> To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.**org >> Subject: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ assigned to Walker >> >> On 26/06/2013 10:09 AM, games...@chuckcarroll.org wrote: >> >>> I invoke judgement on the following statement: The selection of a >>> Judge for this statement is a move whose legality cannot be determined >>> with finality. >>> >> >> By rule 331, I must randomly select from myself or those who voted on the >> last proposal, excluding Chuck. The last proposal was 341 (...OR WAS >> IT??) >> >> My virtual 8-sided die comes up.. Walker again. You have 24 hours. >> >> >> >>> Reasoning: Rule 331 reads, "The Speaker shall choose Judges randomly >>> from the set of qualified players. The players qualified to judge a >>> statement are the Speaker and those Voters who voted on the rule >>> change whose voting period most recently ended, except for the player >>> who invoked judgement, and the player (if any) most recently selected as >>> >> the statement's Judge. >> >>> >>> The voting periods on proposed rule changes 331 through 341 all ended >>> simultaneously. However, the set of Voters who voted on these rule >>> changes is not identical, but varies by proposal. (Specifically: >>> Steve, Chuck, Walker, Yally, omd, and ehird voted on all eleven >>> proposals; FSX and Blob voted on proposal 340 only; Murphy and Roujo >>> voted on proposal 341 only.) Rule 331 demands that qualified players >>> are the Speaker and Voters who voted on *the* rule change whose voting >>> >> period most recently ended. >> >>> Singular. Not the last listed or highest numbered among simultaneously >>> ending proposals, and neither the union nor the intersection of Voters >>> who voted on simultaneously ending proposals. There is no method by >>> which to select *which* proposal's voters, from simultaneously ending >>> proposals, are eligible, and thus the selection of a Judge from the >>> Speaker and Voters who voted on any specific one of Proposals 331 >>> through 341 is a move whose legality cannot be determined with finality. >>> >>> [Aside: one might argue that a "rule change" is different from a >>> "proposed rule change," and Rule 331 refers to the former, but that >>> does not resolve the situation, as 331, 332, 333, and 340 were all >>> adopted and thus became rule changes.] >>> >>> Chuck >>> >>> >> > -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ assigned to Steve
I judge that this statement is FALSE. R207 is silent on the question of whether Roujo can can legally cast votes in the manner e attempted. By R217 I must therefore be guided by game custom and spirit of the game. Game custom is not sufficiently established to be of use here. The spirit of this game seems to me to have two salient characteristics: (1) speed, and (2) heavy reliance on the Speaker to keep things moving along smoothly so that the blitz character of the game can be maintained. Therefore, we should be very cautious about opening the door to practices which impose non-trivial extra burdens on the Speaker. Since Roujo's statement makes all the votes e attempted to case conditional on the results of calculations to be performed by the Speaker, that is, tallying the votes already cast up to the moment of Roujo's message, it is my judgement that none of those attempted votes succeeded. On 27 June 2013 11:14, Fool wrote: > Why not! I call for judgement on: > > "Roujo has cast valid votes on proposals by means of the message quoted > below." > > On 26/06/2013 10:12 AM, Jonathan Rouillard wrote: > >> I also vote FOR all current proposals, except those who currently have >> a majority of AGAINST votes - I vote AGAINST on those. >> >> > Arguments: > He can only vote for or against (207). It makes sense to allow > conditionals but votes are hidden from him (207) so in this case the > condition cannot be resolved by him, even if I can resolve it. > > > By 331, I must randomly select a Voter on 341. My virtual 8-sided die > comes up > Steve. > > You have 24 hours. > > -Dan > -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ on the UNDEAD
You should have injected them with an emergency hit of information theory. Instant clarity. -- Steve Gardner via mobile On 27 Jun 2013 02:08, "Kerim Aydin" wrote: > > > > On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, Fool wrote: > > On 26/06/2013 12:07 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > I was blocking on the term "logician", that's a better choice. (Just > had a > > > flashback to the day in grad school when I became a committed Bayesian, > > > maybe I was channeling). > > > > Yeah man, you can get flashbacks from that sort of thing. Or so I've > heard, I > > wouldn't know. I mean, yeah I did do subjective priors once. But I didn't > > inhale. > > Man, once you get started you just can't stop. Problem is you actually > come to > decisions one day, the you realize that Uniform just ain't doing it > anymore and > you need a heavy weighting hit. I could tell you tales about colleagues > strung > out on gammas, paralyzed with uncertainty, chains never converging, begging > for "just one more" parameter... > > > >
Re: DIS: Agora XX: Proposal 344-347
For all of these. -- Steve Gardner via mobile On 26 Jun 2013 22:03, "Fool" wrote: > > [Missed one...] > > Here I'll just number and repeat the four new proposals that were made. > You can vote by replying to this message, privately if you like. > I'll send out a full report shortly. > > -Dan > > 344 (Yally): > >> Amend Rule 326 to read: >> >> Each year on June 30th at 00:04:30 UTC +1200 , the game shall end, >> and the Voter with the most points shall win. In case of a tie, all >> such Voters shall win simultaneously. At this time, no game actions >> may be taken and all timers shall pause. Each year on June 1st at >> 00:00 UTC the game shall resume and each player shall have eir points >> set to 0. At this time game actions may again be taken and all timers >> shall resume. >> > > 345 (Blob): > >> I propose that a rule be enacted reading: >> >> "If a player proposes a rule change which is not adopted at the end >> of its voting period, that player must immediately forfeit the >> game." >> > > 346 (Blob): > >> I propose that a rule be enacted reading: >> >> "Any player who proposes to amend, renumber or repeal rule 311 is >> deemed to have forfeited the game." >> > > 347 (Chuck): > >> I propose that Rule 302, or a Rule formerly having had the number >> 302 (if there is exactly one such rule) be amended to read “Players >> whose proposals are adopted shall receive 10 points.” >> > >
Re: DIS: Agora XX: Proposal
I vote for this proposal. -- Steve Gardner via mobile On 26 Jun 2013 18:21, "Chuck Carroll" wrote: > I propose that Rule 302, or a Rule formerly having had the number 302 (if > there is exactly one such rule) be amended to read “Players whose proposals > are adopted shall receive 10 points.” > > ** ** > > Chuck > > ** ** >
Re: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ on the UNDEAD
Quite right Dan. While I applaud the spirit of omd's attempt to win by paradox, we are very far from being in a position to say that we cannot determine whether The UNDEAD is player. We haven't even tried to collect any of the possibly relevant evidence yet! On 26 June 2013 11:22, Fool wrote: > On 25/06/2013 4:34 PM, omd wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:27 PM, The >> UNDEAD> >> wrote: >> >>> I do not register. I propose repealing rule 327. >>> >> >> Well... even though there are supposed to be a few days left, I don't >> want to delay this further lest someone else beat me to it :) >> >> I invoke judgement on the statement "The legality of The UNDEAD's >> attempted proposal cannot be determined with finality." >> >> I submit that either I or my brother sent this message, but I won't >> reveal which one. My brother is not a Voter, so the move is legal >> iff I was the one who sent it. >> >> > Maybe you should have delayed about 11 hours. By rule 214, I must assign > myself Judge. By rule 215, I have 24 hours. But I rule now: FALSE. > > Goethe's arguments: > >> Was thinking about this, it's interesting that this win attempt goes >> along with our earlier discussion on legal versus mathematical. In a >> mathematical sense, one could say that it was "equally likely or >> unlikely" that omd sent the message based applying the principle of >> indifference to omd's claim. But in a legal sense, one must establish >> where the burden of proof lies. So far, the default assumption has >> been "assume each new email address is from a different person". Omd >> questions the default assumption, but with testimony that does not >> sufficiently establish a preponderance of evidence. Therefore, stick >> with the default assumption (that the message came from someone other >> than omd). >> > > Clearly the presumption is of course that the Undead is not a Voter. > > Furthermore I fail to see how even the mathematician's (thought it was > supposed to be logician's) version of the argument is sound. The reference > to the "principle of indifference" instead makes it sound like some sort of > Bayesian reasoning. But let me put my Bayesian hat on anyway. For this to > work I would have to put 100% credence in omd's statement and then think > that there was nothing to epistemically distinguish the two branches. This > is far from the case. > > --Dan the non-Bayesian Fool. > -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: Proposal
Either 'Flameshadowxeroshin' or 'FSX' will serve as a name, IMO. -- Steve Gardner via mobile On 25 Jun 2013 22:04, "Fool" wrote: > Hi FSX, > Well, since you're voting for, would it be fair to ask for your name? > > -Dan > > On 25/06/2013 1:24 AM, Flameshadowxeroshin wrote: > >> I vote for this proposal. >> >> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Steven Gardner >> wrote: >> >>> I vote for this Proposal. >>> >>> >>> On 25 June 2013 00:10, Steven >>> Gardner> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I submit the following proposal: >>>> >>>> Enact a new Rule which reads: >>>> >>>> Within 24 hours of this Rule being enacted, the Speaker shall publish >>>> the >>>> names and email addresses of all registered players of Agora XX. >>>> >>>> Steve >>>> >>>
Re: DIS: Proposals 331-341
On 25 Jun 2013 21:52, "Fool" wrote: > 331 (omd): > > I propose that Rule 214 be amended to read: > > > > The Speaker shall choose Judges randomly from the set of qualified > > players. The players qualified to judge a statement are the Speaker > > and those Voters who voted on the rule change whose voting period most > > recently ended, except for the player who invoked judgement, and the > > player (if any) most recently selected as the statement's Judge. > > > > [Proposal comment: i.e. judges now selected from active players rather > > than always being the Speaker. I vote AGAINST Prop. 331. > > 332 (omd): > > I propose that Rule 302 be amended to read: > > > > When a proposal is adopted, each Voter who voted against it shall > > receive 5 points, and its author shall receive 10 points. When a > > proposal's voting period ends, each Voter who voted on it shall > > receive 5 points, unless they received points by this clause in the > > last 24 hours. > > > > [Proposal comment: Reward for voting.] I vote FOR Prop. 332. > > 333 (omd): > > I propose that Rule 205 be amended to read: > > > > The Speaker shall make one proposal distribution per 24 hours, > > numbering and publishing the text of each proposal submitted since the > > last distribution. This starts each such proposal's prescribed voting > > period, which lasts 24 hours. > > > > [Proposal comment: Fewer distributions and overlapping voting periods > > = more votes?] I vote AGAINST Prop 333. It's blitz nomic ain't it? It's supposed to feel chaotic. > > > > 334 (omd): > > I propose that Rules 217 (game custom, spirit of the game) be made immutable. I vote AGAINST Prop 334. > > 335 (omd): > > I propose that Rule 213 (judgements) be made immutable. I vote AGAINST Prop 335. > > 336 (omd): > > I propose that Rule 210 (timing of rule changes) be made immutable. I vote AGAINST Prop 336. > > 337 (omd): > > I propose that Rule 102 (initial mutability) be made mutable (because > > I would like to repeal it). I vote FOR Prop 337. > > 338 (omd): > > I propose that Rule 111 (conflict between mutable and immutable rules) > > be made mutable (ditto, I would like to make numerical precedence > > apply to all conflicts). I vote FOR Prop 338. > > 339 (omd): > > I propose that Rule 109 be made mutable (because I would like to make > > rule numbers stable rather than changing after every amendment). I vote FOR Prop 339. > > 340 (Steve): > > Enact a new Rule which reads: > > > > Within 24 hours of this Rule being enacted, the Speaker shall publish > > the names and email addresses of all registered players of Agora XX. > I vote FOR Prop 340. Though I already did. > 341 (scshunt): > > I propose the following rule: > > > > At 12:00 July 1 2013 UTC+1200, Agora XX ends and the player with the > > most points wins the game. In the event of a tie, the tied player who > > most recently had more points than each other tied player wins. I vote AGAINST Prop 341. > >
Re: DIS: Re: Agora XX: Registration
HI Chuck! How are we all doing? On 24 June 2013 21:29, Chuck Carroll wrote: > Hi Steve! > > ** ** > > Chuck > > ** ** > > *From:* agora-discussion [mailto:agora-discussion-boun...@agoranomic.org] > *On Behalf Of *Steven Gardner > *Sent:* Monday, June 24, 2013 1:52 AM > *To:* agora-discussion@agoranomic.org > *Subject:* DIS: Agora XX: Registration > > ** ** > > Happy 20th birthday, Agora. I register as a player of Agora XX. > > ** ** > > Steve > > > ** ** > > -- > Steve Gardner > Research Grants Development > Faculty of Business and Economics > Monash University, Caulfield campus > Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 > e: steven.gard...@monash.edu > *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk on alternate > Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** > > > Two facts about lists: > (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; > (2) I can't remember what the other one is. > -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: Registration
Good to hear from you again, old friend. And to see other old-timers here, too. On 25 June 2013 00:34, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Mon, 24 Sun 2013, Steven Gardner wrote: > > Happy 20th birthday, Agora. I register as a player of Agora XX. > > Steve > > Steve!! Good morning from this timezone. > (Now I'd better really catch up). > > > > -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: Proposal
I vote for this Proposal. On 25 June 2013 00:10, Steven Gardner wrote: > I submit the following proposal: > > Enact a new Rule which reads: > > Within 24 hours of this Rule being enacted, the Speaker shall publish the > names and email addresses of all registered players of Agora XX. > > Steve > > -- > Steve Gardner > Research Grants Development > Faculty of Business and Economics > Monash University, Caulfield campus > Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 > e: steven.gard...@monash.edu > *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on > alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** > > Two facts about lists: > (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; > (2) I can't remember what the other one is. > -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
DIS: Agora XX: Proposal
I submit the following proposal: Enact a new Rule which reads: Within 24 hours of this Rule being enacted, the Speaker shall publish the names and email addresses of all registered players of Agora XX. Steve -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: The Rights of the Majority
I vote for that. Now, what's Rule 324? Where can I read the Agora XX Rules? -- Steve Gardner via mobile On 24 Jun 2013 18:18, "Charles Walker" wrote: > I propose to amend Rule 324 by deleting the first sentence. > > -- Walker >
DIS: Agora XX: Registration
Happy 20th birthday, Agora. I register as a player of Agora XX. Steve -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
