Re: DIS: Agora XX: 11th report
On 28 June 2013 05:49, Steven Gardner steven.gard...@monash.edu 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
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 charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 June 2013 05:49, Steven Gardner steven.gard...@monash.edu 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.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: 11th report
On 28 June 2013 10:47, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote: On 27/06/2013 8:43 PM, Steven Gardner wrote: On 28 June 2013 10:36, Fool fool1...@gmail.com 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
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013, Charles Walker wrote: On 28 June 2013 05:49, Steven Gardner steven.gard...@monash.edu 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. Just on the undecidable part, I'd make the following suggestions from current Agora: 1. Use determinate. If a judgement finds a certain aspect of the game indeterminate, it is just called indeterminate, no biggie. Anything indeterminate is ignored in determining any win, and judges are encouraged to isolate the minimal amount of indeterminism in figuring this out (e.g., if a certain points award is indeterminate, then just those points are indeterminate, not the whole of the player's score. 2. If, notwithstanding the above, play truly can't continue, or the fundamental determination of winning is impossible, everyone loses. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Agora XX: 11th report
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
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 fool1...@gmail.com 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
Re: DIS: Agora XX: 11th report
On 28/06/2013 7:43 PM, Steven Gardner wrote: Firstly, I think you're missing the point about injustice, Dan. I could be, but am I really? The right protects the accused against unjust attaint by the gov't. In the case before us, legislator and victim are the same. He was hoist by his own petard. It was rather poetic justice. :-) Secondly, the first part of the Canadian charter you quote is the relevant bit here, not the second. And that part supports my argument. My point is that if R108 was meant to be that way, it would sound more like the Charter. The first bit I quoted does not say anything about rewarding ex post facto, and the second bit specifically allows reducing punishment ex post facto. The Charter is only against punishing, or increasing punishment, ex post facto. It is specifically a right of the accused, and applications not unfairly against the accused are not prohibited. R108 is not written as a player right at all (*cough* unlike R113 *cough*). It does not distinguish between rules going one way or the other. I don't think your interpretation fits at all. -Dan
Re: DIS: Agora XX: 11th report
If I am to be hoisted, it will be *with* my petard, not by it. For ’tis the sport to have the engineer Hoist with his own petard: -- Hamlet Act III, Scene IV Blob (exploding pedant) On 29/06/2013, at 10:18 AM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote: On 28/06/2013 7:43 PM, Steven Gardner wrote: Firstly, I think you're missing the point about injustice, Dan. I could be, but am I really? The right protects the accused against unjust attaint by the gov't. In the case before us, legislator and victim are the same. He was hoist by his own petard. It was rather poetic justice. :-) Secondly, the first part of the Canadian charter you quote is the relevant bit here, not the second. And that part supports my argument. My point is that if R108 was meant to be that way, it would sound more like the Charter. The first bit I quoted does not say anything about rewarding ex post facto, and the second bit specifically allows reducing punishment ex post facto. The Charter is only against punishing, or increasing punishment, ex post facto. It is specifically a right of the accused, and applications not unfairly against the accused are not prohibited. R108 is not written as a player right at all (*cough* unlike R113 *cough*). It does not distinguish between rules going one way or the other. I don't think your interpretation fits at all. -Dan
Re: DIS: Agora XX: 11th report
On 27 June 2013 22:38, Fool fool1...@gmail.com 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: 11th report
CFJ: Blob has forfeited. The rule in question (345) states: 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. Note that the wording is a requirement placed on the player to act, not an automatic event. (Compare to the rejected proposal that stated a player would be deemed to have forfeited). R113 strongly implies that forfeiture is a choice (a conscious act at the control of the player in question). Therefore, the R345 states that Blob is now under the compulsion to deregister (i.e. e is violating this rule as long as he hasn't deregistered), but has not yet done so. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Agora XX: 11th report
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote: CFJ: Blob has forfeited. The rule in question (345) states: 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. Note that the wording is a requirement placed on the player to act, not an automatic event. (Compare to the rejected proposal that stated a player would be deemed to have forfeited). R113 strongly implies that forfeiture is a choice (a conscious act at the control of the player in question). Therefore, the R345 states that Blob is now under the compulsion to deregister (i.e. e is violating this rule as long as he hasn't deregistered), but has not yet done so. Addendum, if you replace forfeit the game in R345 with (say) produce a report, it's pretty clear that it's a mandate for a person to perform an act, not a statement that the act automatically happens.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: 11th report
I call for judgement on the following statement. Blob does not have to forfeit under rule 345. Reasoning: Rule 345 says If a player proposes a rule change that is not adopted... I made proposal 346 BEFORE this rule came into effect. Rule 108 forbids retroactive application. Blob On 27/06/2013, at 10:38 PM, Fool wrote: Good day Agorans, A correction from last report brought to my attention by Yally. It does involve the disputed interpretation of the order of events when the voting on multiple proposals closes simultaneously. I am going with the interpretation that they pass sequentially in order I numbered them (which is also the order they were proposed). This means that rule 305 does not forbid rule 332 from assigning points for votes on proposals 333-340. Rule 332 awards three types of points, which I'll label: (a) 10 points for proposing something that passed. I'd already awarded these. (b) 5 points for voting against a proposal which passed. Steve and Chuck get 5 for prop 333; Walker, omd, and Yally get 5 for prop 340. (c) 5 points for voting on any prop which passes or fails, provided you didn't get points by this clause in the last 24 hours. Walker, omd, Yally, ehird, Chuck, Steve, FSX, Blob, Murphy, Roujo get 5. (I'd already awarded the 10 points for proposing something that passes, 305 didn't forbid that.) Alright, onward. Proposals 342-343 closed a few hours ago, and 344-347 just closed. Proposal 342 (Chuck) passes 6:2 with Michael, Blob, Chuck, ehird, Goethe, and Steve FOR; Walker and Yally AGAINST. This amends rule 326 (the ending conditions). Chuck gets 10 points by 332(a), Walker and Yally 5 by 332(b), Michael and Goethe 5 by 332(c) (the rest already got their 332(c) points). Proposal 343 (Chuck) passes 6:2 with Michael, Blob, Chuck, ehird, Goethe, and Steve FOR; Walker and Yally AGAINST. This amends rule 342. Chuck gets 10 points by 332(a), Walker and Yally 5 by 332(b). Everybody's already got their 332(c) points. 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. Proposal 345 (Blob) passes 6:5 with Blob, scshunt, Goethe, Steve, ehird, and Chuck FOR; Yally, Walker, Michael, FSX, and omd AGAINST. This enacts a new rule saying that whenever a proposal fails, the proposer forfeits. Blob gets 10 points by 332(a). Yally, Walker, Michael, FSX, omd get 5 by 332(b). Blob, FSX, and scshunt get 5 by 332(c). And the next proposal is 346, by Blob Now, did anyone guess that it would fail? Well, put on a big silly hat and call yourself Carnac the Magnificent! It fails 4:4, with Blob, Steve, Goethe, and Chuck FOR; Walker, ehird, Michael, and omd AGAINST. Blob forfeits. Finally, proposal 347 (Chuck) passes 7:2 with Walker, Blob, ehird, Steve, Goethe, FSX, and Chuck FOR; Yally and omd AGAINST. This amends 332. Now there's just 10 points for proposing a proposal that passes. Chuck gets 10 points. The twelve Voters, one ex-Voter, and their scores are: omd, 123 points FSX, 5 points Walker, 137 points Chuck, 115 points ehird, 40 points Yally, 40 points Michael, 10 points scshunt, 11 points Roujo, 5 points Murphy, 5 points Goethe, 10 points Steve, 27 points Blob, 20 points [forfeited] Then there's me, I am Speaker, I have -10 points. There is a pending CFJ called by Goethe on what forfeiture means, assigned to omd. I raised a CFJ on Roujo's votes which were conditional on the secret votes of others. Steve ruled these votes were invalid. Most importantly, Chuck called two CFJs on the wording of rule 331, which may give him the win by paradox. These are pending, assigned to Walker and Michael. If I receive any proposals promptly, I will distribute. Otherwise the next and final distribution is in 24 hours, and the game ends 24 hours after that. Unless the rules change, or Chuck wins in the meantime. The current ruleset is below. Cheers, Dan Mehkeri -- Rule 101 (Immutable) All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect. The rules in the Initial Set are in effect at the beginning of the first game. The Initial Set consists of rules 101-116 (immutable) and 201-219 (mutable). History: Initial Immutable Rule 101, Jun. 30 1993 -- Rule 102 (Immutable) Initially rules in the 100's are immutable and rules in the 200's are
Re: DIS: Agora XX: 11th report
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 On 27/06/2013, at 10:38 PM, Fool wrote: Good day Agorans, A correction from last report brought to my attention by Yally. It does involve the disputed interpretation of the order of events when the voting on multiple proposals closes simultaneously. I am going with the interpretation that they pass sequentially in order I numbered them (which is also the order they were proposed). This means that rule 305 does not forbid rule 332 from assigning points for votes on proposals 333-340. Rule 332 awards three types of points, which I'll label: (a) 10 points for proposing something that passed. I'd already awarded these. (b) 5 points for voting against a proposal which passed. Steve and Chuck get 5 for prop 333; Walker, omd, and Yally get 5 for prop 340. (c) 5 points for voting on any prop which passes or fails, provided you didn't get points by this clause in the last 24 hours. Walker, omd, Yally, ehird, Chuck, Steve, FSX, Blob, Murphy, Roujo get 5. (I'd already awarded the 10 points for proposing something that passes, 305 didn't forbid that.) Alright, onward. Proposals 342-343 closed a few hours ago, and 344-347 just closed. Proposal 342 (Chuck) passes 6:2 with Michael, Blob, Chuck, ehird, Goethe, and Steve FOR; Walker and Yally AGAINST. This amends rule 326 (the ending conditions). Chuck gets 10 points by 332(a), Walker and Yally 5 by 332(b), Michael and Goethe 5 by 332(c) (the rest already got their 332(c) points). Proposal 343 (Chuck) passes 6:2 with Michael, Blob, Chuck, ehird, Goethe, and Steve FOR; Walker and Yally AGAINST. This amends rule 342. Chuck gets 10 points by 332(a), Walker and Yally 5 by 332(b). Everybody's already got their 332(c) points. 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. Proposal 345 (Blob) passes 6:5 with Blob, scshunt, Goethe, Steve, ehird, and Chuck FOR; Yally, Walker, Michael, FSX, and omd AGAINST. This enacts a new rule saying that whenever a proposal fails, the proposer forfeits. Blob gets 10 points by 332(a). Yally, Walker, Michael, FSX, omd get 5 by 332(b). Blob, FSX, and scshunt get 5 by 332(c). And the next proposal is 346, by Blob Now, did anyone guess that it would fail? Well, put on a big silly hat and call yourself Carnac the Magnificent! It fails 4:4, with Blob, Steve, Goethe, and Chuck FOR; Walker, ehird, Michael, and omd AGAINST. Blob forfeits. Finally, proposal 347 (Chuck) passes 7:2 with Walker, Blob, ehird, Steve, Goethe, FSX, and Chuck FOR; Yally and omd AGAINST. This amends 332. Now there's just 10 points for proposing a proposal that passes. Chuck gets 10 points. The twelve Voters, one ex-Voter, and their scores are: omd, 123 points FSX, 5 points Walker, 137 points Chuck, 115 points ehird, 40 points Yally, 40 points Michael, 10 points scshunt, 11 points Roujo, 5 points Murphy, 5 points Goethe, 10 points Steve, 27 points Blob, 20 points [forfeited] Then there's me, I am Speaker, I have -10 points. There is a pending CFJ called by Goethe on what forfeiture means, assigned to omd. I raised a CFJ on Roujo's votes which were conditional on the secret votes of others. Steve ruled these votes were invalid. Most importantly, Chuck called two CFJs on the wording of rule 331, which may give him the win by paradox. These are pending, assigned to Walker and Michael. If I receive any proposals promptly, I will distribute. Otherwise the next and final distribution is in 24 hours, and the game ends 24 hours after that. Unless the rules change, or Chuck wins in the meantime. The current ruleset is below. Cheers, Dan Mehkeri -- Rule 101 (Immutable) All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect. The rules in the Initial Set are in effect at the beginning of the first game. The Initial Set consists of rules 101-116 (immutable) and 201-219 (mutable). History: Initial Immutable Rule 101, Jun. 30 1993 -- Rule 102 (Immutable) Initially rules in the 100's are immutable and rules in the 200's
Re: DIS: Agora XX: 11th report
Oh, Goethe has already CFJ'ed this. Oops. Blob (on the lam) On 28/06/2013, at 10:19 AM, 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 On 27/06/2013, at 10:38 PM, Fool wrote: Good day Agorans, A correction from last report brought to my attention by Yally. It does involve the disputed interpretation of the order of events when the voting on multiple proposals closes simultaneously. I am going with the interpretation that they pass sequentially in order I numbered them (which is also the order they were proposed). This means that rule 305 does not forbid rule 332 from assigning points for votes on proposals 333-340. Rule 332 awards three types of points, which I'll label: (a) 10 points for proposing something that passed. I'd already awarded these. (b) 5 points for voting against a proposal which passed. Steve and Chuck get 5 for prop 333; Walker, omd, and Yally get 5 for prop 340. (c) 5 points for voting on any prop which passes or fails, provided you didn't get points by this clause in the last 24 hours. Walker, omd, Yally, ehird, Chuck, Steve, FSX, Blob, Murphy, Roujo get 5. (I'd already awarded the 10 points for proposing something that passes, 305 didn't forbid that.) Alright, onward. Proposals 342-343 closed a few hours ago, and 344-347 just closed. Proposal 342 (Chuck) passes 6:2 with Michael, Blob, Chuck, ehird, Goethe, and Steve FOR; Walker and Yally AGAINST. This amends rule 326 (the ending conditions). Chuck gets 10 points by 332(a), Walker and Yally 5 by 332(b), Michael and Goethe 5 by 332(c) (the rest already got their 332(c) points). Proposal 343 (Chuck) passes 6:2 with Michael, Blob, Chuck, ehird, Goethe, and Steve FOR; Walker and Yally AGAINST. This amends rule 342. Chuck gets 10 points by 332(a), Walker and Yally 5 by 332(b). Everybody's already got their 332(c) points. 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. Proposal 345 (Blob) passes 6:5 with Blob, scshunt, Goethe, Steve, ehird, and Chuck FOR; Yally, Walker, Michael, FSX, and omd AGAINST. This enacts a new rule saying that whenever a proposal fails, the proposer forfeits. Blob gets 10 points by 332(a). Yally, Walker, Michael, FSX, omd get 5 by 332(b). Blob, FSX, and scshunt get 5 by 332(c). And the next proposal is 346, by Blob Now, did anyone guess that it would fail? Well, put on a big silly hat and call yourself Carnac the Magnificent! It fails 4:4, with Blob, Steve, Goethe, and Chuck FOR; Walker, ehird, Michael, and omd AGAINST. Blob forfeits. Finally, proposal 347 (Chuck) passes 7:2 with Walker, Blob, ehird, Steve, Goethe, FSX, and Chuck FOR; Yally and omd AGAINST. This amends 332. Now there's just 10 points for proposing a proposal that passes. Chuck gets 10 points. The twelve Voters, one ex-Voter, and their scores are: omd, 123 points FSX, 5 points Walker, 137 points Chuck, 115 points ehird, 40 points Yally, 40 points Michael, 10 points scshunt, 11 points Roujo, 5 points Murphy, 5 points Goethe, 10 points Steve, 27 points Blob, 20 points [forfeited] Then there's me, I am Speaker, I have -10 points. There is a pending CFJ called by Goethe on what forfeiture means, assigned to omd. I raised a CFJ on Roujo's votes which were conditional on the secret votes of others. Steve ruled these votes were invalid. Most importantly, Chuck called two CFJs on the wording of rule 331, which may give him the win by paradox. These are pending, assigned to Walker and Michael. If I receive any proposals promptly, I will distribute. Otherwise the next and final distribution is in 24 hours, and the game ends 24 hours after that. Unless the rules change, or Chuck wins in the meantime. The current ruleset is below. Cheers, Dan Mehkeri -- Rule 101 (Immutable) All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect. The rules in the Initial Set are in effect at the beginning of the first game. The Initial Set consists of rules 101-116 (immutable) and 201-219 (mutable). History: Initial Immutable Rule 101, Jun. 30 1993
Re: DIS: Agora XX: 11th report
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...
Re: DIS: Agora XX: 11th report
On 27/06/2013 8:15 PM, Malcolm Ryan wrote: I call for judgement on the following statement. Blob does not have to forfeit under rule 345. Reasoning: Rule 345 says If a player proposes a rule change that is not adopted... I made proposal 346 BEFORE this rule came into effect. Rule 108 forbids retroactive application. If this CFJ is valid, I have 24 hours to assign a Judge, by rule 213. 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. -Dan
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 fool1...@gmail.com 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: 11th report
On 28 June 2013 10:36, Fool 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. 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
On 27/06/2013 8:43 PM, Steven Gardner wrote: On 28 June 2013 10:36, Fool fool1...@gmail.com 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. Steve 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.) -Dan
Re: DIS: Agora XX: 11th report
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
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 fool1...@gmail.com 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 Thu, 27 Jun 2013, 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? I wondered about this interpretation when I CFJ'd, that is, maybe Blob hasn't yet forfeited, but anything e does other than forfeit would mean e didn't forfeit immediately, so such things would be against the rules for em to do. Of course, this raises the age old question of whether, if e does an illegal thing, whether it actually fails (since we haven't differentiated IMPOSSIBLE from ILLEGAL here at all...)
Re: DIS: Agora XX: 11th report
On 27/06/2013 8:55 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Of course, this raises the age old question of whether, if e does an illegal thing, whether it actually fails (since we haven't differentiated IMPOSSIBLE from ILLEGAL here at all...) Okay, for the sake of argument: then that also applies to all players, not just Blob. Also, to the Speaker. -Dan
Re: DIS: Agora XX: 11th report
Aand we return to the old Platonic vs Pragmatic debate. Blob (staying low) On 28/06/2013, at 11:06 AM, Fool wrote: On 27/06/2013 8:55 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Of course, this raises the age old question of whether, if e does an illegal thing, whether it actually fails (since we haven't differentiated IMPOSSIBLE from ILLEGAL here at all...) Okay, for the sake of argument: then that also applies to all players, not just Blob. Also, to the Speaker. -Dan
Re: DIS: Agora XX: 11th report
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013, Fool wrote: On 27/06/2013 8:55 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Of course, this raises the age old question of whether, if e does an illegal thing, whether it actually fails (since we haven't differentiated IMPOSSIBLE from ILLEGAL here at all...) Okay, for the sake of argument: then that also applies to all players, not just Blob. Also, to the Speaker. Well yes, in part. If the rules don't say it can be done in the first place, it's generally taken to be impossible. E.g. you can't say I cheat and win and win, because the rules don't give any way to win just by saying so. If the rules forbid something, but can't stop it from happening, then it's illegal, but can't be deemed to have not happened. Examples are prohibitions on speech: the Speaker can't reveal secret votes until after the voting period ends. Well, obviously, you can, and we can't claim it didn't happen. If the votes are revealed, they're revealed. This is a gray area. If the rules say that e must forfeit before e does *anything*, then just by posting a message whose first words aren't I forfeit, e has broken that rule. And clearly, the breakage was something that can't be taken back (the fact that e wrote the email was the breakage, and that can't be taken back). So if the crime is the message itself, then the crime doesn't actually impact the action that the message would *otherwise* have according to the rules (a valid vote, or a CFJ) - that still happens. Or does it? Not very satisfying either way IMO.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: 11th report
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. ...
Re: DIS: Agora XX: 11th report
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...
Re: DIS: Agora XX: 11th report
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. ...
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 malco...@cse.unsw.edu.au 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: 11th report
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Steven Gardner steven.gard...@monash.edu 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.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: 11th report
On 28 June 2013 14:18, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Steven Gardner steven.gard...@monash.edu 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
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.
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 ke...@u.washington.edu 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.
