DIS: Re: BUS: Act V
Sgeo wrote: I win by Junta. Iff this works, and comex has no Rests, and previous assumptions of wins are correct: I don't think it worked, but if it did, then comex's Rests were irrelevant (e amended R2238 to turn off all Losing Conditions).
DIS: Re: BUS: Act V
On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 10:30 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, comex wrote:
I win by Junta.
You'll probably kill me for this, but even if it worked, you'll
probably have to CFJ on whether this was a win announcement.
It wasn't a win announcement, but Junta doesn't need one.
It's a tradition of mine to ISIDTID-win whenever I achieve a win by
other means, to help point things out and because I want to
do /something/ to commemorate the occasion. This happens even when I
make a win announcement, as in the following hypothetical message I
might send:
{{{
The following sentence is a Win Announcement, and this sentence serves
to clearly label it as one. CFJ 1 has been a tortoise continously for
between two and four weeks.
I win by Paradox.
}}}
On another note, it's rather confusing to have some sorts of wins which
need Win Announcements, and some sorts of wins which don't. Maybe we
should orthogonalize it?
--
ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Act V
On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 17:28 -0500, Sgeo wrote: comex gains the Patent Title of Champion, for Winning by Junta. comex gains the Patent Title of Minister without Portfolio. The title of Minister without Portfolio is administratively revoked from ais523 and e loses eir Speakership. Pavitra is the new Speaker. Oh, that's ridiculous, you mean I have to win /again/? Looks like I'll have to go back to scheming up new ways to win. I'd like another semi-legit win, a good mix of scam wins and legit wins seems the way to go. /me waits for the next Scorekeepor's Report... -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Act V
On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 18:55 -0500, comex wrote: On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Seems to be a part of Zefram's mass generalizations. Although even with the distinction, when something ceases to be a rule, it pretty much no longer exists in legal Agoran terms (at least in normal circumstances), so it's hard to say that's not legally destroying it. I transfer one coin to the entity formerly known as Rule 2184. :P Can't, it isn't a party to the PBA. We really need some random useless asset to transfer round to test asset rules. Maybe I should bring back Silly Hats... -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Act V
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote: On another note, it's rather confusing to have some sorts of wins which need Win Announcements, and some sorts of wins which don't. Maybe we should orthogonalize it? Well I was confused, so probably. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Act V
Kerim Aydin wrote: I've thought about changing this before. When you win and you're already on the list, what's the most balanced: 1. Current; 2. Setting award date to new win date (back to bottom on list). 3. Adding name a second time; a. Allowed to hold two prerogatives; b. Not allowed to hold two prerogatives. I proto-vote for 2. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Act V
On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 12:22 -0600, Benjamin Caplan wrote: Kerim Aydin wrote: I've thought about changing this before. When you win and you're already on the list, what's the most balanced: 1. Current; 2. Setting award date to new win date (back to bottom on list). 3. Adding name a second time; a. Allowed to hold two prerogatives; b. Not allowed to hold two prerogatives. I proto-vote for 2. That would mean that winning a lot would keep you as MWoP, but mean you were hardly ever Speaker. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Act V
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 17:28 -0500, Sgeo wrote: comex gains the Patent Title of Champion, for Winning by Junta. comex gains the Patent Title of Minister without Portfolio. The title of Minister without Portfolio is administratively revoked from ais523 and e loses eir Speakership. Pavitra is the new Speaker. Oh, that's ridiculous, you mean I have to win /again/? Looks like I'll have to go back to scheming up new ways to win. I'd like another semi-legit win, a good mix of scam wins and legit wins seems the way to go. /me waits for the next Scorekeepor's Report... -- ais523 This is partly my fault for not having inactives removed before the speaker was removed when I proposed to change that part of the rule. I just wanted to avoid having current Speakers dodge the loss of their speakership by going inactive.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Act V
Alex Smith wrote: On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 12:22 -0600, Benjamin Caplan wrote: Kerim Aydin wrote: I've thought about changing this before. When you win and you're already on the list, what's the most balanced: I proto-vote for 2. That would mean that winning a lot would keep you as MWoP, but mean you were hardly ever Speaker. ah... I see. R1922(e): if it is still greater, then this title is administratively revoked from the MwoP whose most recent win is earliest, with ties broken in favor of revoking from the MwoP who has been registered the shortest. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
DIS: Re: BUS: Act V
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, comex wrote: * destroy arbitrary entities I cause Rule 2238 to destroy Rule 2140 (Power Controls Mutability). Heh heh. Pro: Destroy is not very strongly regulated and not secured, etc. Anti: Destroy in the context of a Rule is a very reasonable synonym for Repeal, which is regulated up the wazoo. [Even if power escalation failed, I fear overstaying my welcome.] Oh say it ain't so. I think your document scam anyway is based on finely split hairs in definitions either way and as likely to succeed as fail... -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Act V
comex wrote: I cause Rule 2238 to destroy Rule 2140 (Power Controls Mutability). Oh, honestly. Surely existence is a substantive aspect of an instrument, thus triggering R2140(c) and blocking this.
DIS: Re: BUS: Act V
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, comex wrote: I win by Junta. You'll probably kill me for this, but even if it worked, you'll probably have to CFJ on whether this was a win announcement. I submit the following Proposal, I did so win, AI-2: -- Rule 2186 (Victory) by replacing: A win announcement is a correct announcement explicitly labeled as a win announcement. with: A win announcement is a correct announcement explicitly labeled as a win announcement, or clearly and directly stating that one or more explicitly specified players win. -- -Goethe Looks like it could be parsed: A win announcement is (a correct announcement explicitly labeled as a win announcement), or (clearly and directly stating that one or more explicitly specified players win).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Act V
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: comex wrote: I cause Rule 2238 to destroy Rule 2140 (Power Controls Mutability). Oh, honestly. Surely existence is a substantive aspect of an instrument, thus triggering R2140(c) and blocking this. Destroying something is not altering it. While it's possible to word destruction as a change to 'existence', saying this is awkward and unnatural. You wouldn't usually call 'existence' an aspect of something.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Act V
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, comex wrote: Whether or not I attempted to repeal a rule, repealing doesn't destroy the thing but merely cause it to cease to be a rule, which definitely counts as modifying an aspect of it. By Rule 105 it's impossible to actually destroy a rule at power 3. Ah, I'd forgotten myself that this clause: This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can become a rule or cease to be a rule. specifically separates out destroyed from ceasing to be a rule. The old version: This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be enacted, modified, or repealed. Seems to be a part of Zefram's mass generalizations. Although even with the distinction, when something ceases to be a rule, it pretty much no longer exists in legal Agoran terms (at least in normal circumstances), so it's hard to say that's not legally destroying it. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Act V
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, comex wrote: On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Seems to be a part of Zefram's mass generalizations. Although even with the distinction, when something ceases to be a rule, it pretty much no longer exists in legal Agoran terms (at least in normal circumstances), so it's hard to say that's not legally destroying it. I transfer one coin to the entity formerly known as Rule 2184. :P You can do that with entities that have been previously destroyed as well, as far as I can tell. :P
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Act V
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 6:55 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: I transfer one coin to the entity formerly known as Rule 2184. :P Fails; the entity formerly known as Rule 2184 is not a Comrade.
