Re: DIS: Re: BUS: One More...?
Well, it's all in the same category, so it's not a huge burden to write (x500) in the report. But yes, there have been some "technically infinite" wins in the past I think - this isn't the first time a winning condition failed to reset itself. On Wed, 10 Oct 2018, Alex Smith wrote: > On Tue, 2018-10-09 at 19:59 -0400, D Margaux wrote: > > And one more at the deadline to try to get the last word on the RR > > victories.. :-) > > > > 500. I win by Round Robin. > > > > As I read the rule, there’s no limit to the number of times an > > eligible player can declare victory during the Effective Date. > > > > Is 500 victories enough to be the winningest player in Agoran > > history? > > When similar infinite victory loops have existed in the past, players > generally stopped at 2. > > A loop that large is going to make people want to deny (at least the > repeats of) Champion by proposal, to avoid bloating the Herald's > report. > > -- > ais523 > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: One More...?
Sorry if that breached a norm of the game; I just thought it was a potentially fun scam to run. I thought I saw that repeat awards of victories in the Herald’s report were denoted “(x2)” or “(x3)”, etc., so didn’t think it would bloat the report. If Herald report bloat is a concern, we can put together a proposal to revoke the excess titles or some such. On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 8:01 PM Alex Smith wrote: > On Tue, 2018-10-09 at 19:59 -0400, D Margaux wrote: > > And one more at the deadline to try to get the last word on the RR > > victories.. :-) > > > > 500. I win by Round Robin. > > > > As I read the rule, there’s no limit to the number of times an > > eligible player can declare victory during the Effective Date. > > > > Is 500 victories enough to be the winningest player in Agoran > > history? > > When similar infinite victory loops have existed in the past, players > generally stopped at 2. > > A loop that large is going to make people want to deny (at least the > repeats of) Champion by proposal, to avoid bloating the Herald's > report. > > -- > ais523 > >
DIS: Re: BUS: One More...?
On Tue, 2018-10-09 at 19:59 -0400, D Margaux wrote: > And one more at the deadline to try to get the last word on the RR > victories.. :-) > > 500. I win by Round Robin. > > As I read the rule, there’s no limit to the number of times an > eligible player can declare victory during the Effective Date. > > Is 500 victories enough to be the winningest player in Agoran > history? When similar infinite victory loops have existed in the past, players generally stopped at 2. A loop that large is going to make people want to deny (at least the repeats of) Champion by proposal, to avoid bloating the Herald's report. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: one more silly try
thanks :P I guess I better start thinking of something to do... I mean, it doesn't have to be a good proposal, it just has to meet the criteria of silliness :P On 3/11/2018 4:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: (I *think* we fixed this...?) I designate ATMunn to be next week's[1] Silly Person. Welcome back ATMunn! [1] "next week" starting in a few hours on 12-Mar-18 UTC.
DIS: Re: BUS: one more thing
On Thu, 16 Dec 2010, omd wrote: This escalator is really boring because it's been used repeatedly and I've already won. However, it may be necessary if I can't get the switch thing to work. Accordingly, I intend, With Notice, to cause Rule 2324 to amend Rule 2223 by appending the text: Also, the power of Rule 2324 is set to 2. Er, how exactly are power-1 instruments doing that against R2140?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: one more thing
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Thu, 16 Dec 2010, omd wrote: This escalator is really boring because it's been used repeatedly and I've already won. However, it may be necessary if I can't get the switch thing to work. Accordingly, I intend, With Notice, to cause Rule 2324 to amend Rule 2223 by appending the text: Also, the power of Rule 2324 is set to 2. Er, how exactly are power-1 instruments doing that against R2140? This text from Rule 2186 (power-2): a) For each Winning Condition satisfied by at least one of those persons, its cleanup procedure (if any) occurs.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: one more thing
On Thu, 16 Dec 2010, omd wrote: On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Thu, 16 Dec 2010, omd wrote: This escalator is really boring because it's been used repeatedly and I've already won. However, it may be necessary if I can't get the switch thing to work. Accordingly, I intend, With Notice, to cause Rule 2324 to amend Rule 2223 by appending the text: Also, the power of Rule 2324 is set to 2. Er, how exactly are power-1 instruments doing that against R2140? This text from Rule 2186 (power-2): a) For each Winning Condition satisfied by at least one of those persons, its cleanup procedure (if any) occurs. That's worth a test, but I think the cleanup procedure is still as specified by an instrument of power-1. Haven't we similarly tested that dependent actions occur at the power of each specifically defined dependent action, and not at the power of R1728?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: one more thing
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: That's worth a test, but I think the cleanup procedure is still as specified by an instrument of power-1. Haven't we similarly tested that dependent actions occur at the power of each specifically defined dependent action, and not at the power of R1728? I believe the situations are different. In that case (CFJ 2366), you noted: The problem is, that R1728(a) requires the rules as a whole to authorize the performer to perform the action, and doesn't in itself add to that explicit authority (if it did add it would be self-referentially meaningless). because the relevant part of Rule 1728 was: a) The rules explicitly authorize the performer to perform the action by a set of one or more of the following methods (N is 1 if not otherwise specified): however, in this case, the cleanup procedure is just a procedure; anyone can define a procedure. There is no requirement that the rule defining it also authorize it to take effect.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: one more thing
On Thu, 16 Dec 2010, omd wrote: On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: That's worth a test, but I think the cleanup procedure is still as specified by an instrument of power-1. Haven't we similarly tested that dependent actions occur at the power of each specifically defined dependent action, and not at the power of R1728? I believe the situations are different. In that case (CFJ 2366), you noted: The problem is, that R1728(a) requires the rules as a whole to authorize the performer to perform the action, and doesn't in itself add to that explicit authority (if it did add it would be self-referentially meaningless). because the relevant part of Rule 1728 was: a) The rules explicitly authorize the performer to perform the action by a set of one or more of the following methods (N is 1 if not otherwise specified): however, in this case, the cleanup procedure is just a procedure; anyone can define a procedure. There is no requirement that the rule defining it also authorize it to take effect. Ok, I see how it's reasonably arguable. Again, here I'd personally judge that saying that the cleanup procedure happens is general enough that the lower-powered cleanup procedure: X happens is a similar add that in itself attempts attempts to modify the substantial aspect of operation of the general definition of the procedure. I've just confirmed that my interpretation wouldn't break any other current cleanup procedures, which at a glance seem to only affect items at the same power of each explicit procedure. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: One more
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 06:23, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: I leave C# Party (revised version). (Disclaimer: This only works if at least one of ais523's scam attempts has triggered its any party to the contract can leave it clause, which was designed to give Quazie the same sort of amendment-with-notice ability.) I don't see how this could possibly be effective. C# party specifically states only that Quazie's attempted amendment triggers the notice period where it is permissible to leave the contract. BobTHJ
