Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5636-5639
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:39 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For one thing, Quazie's EVLOD is 5, right? Assuming we treat this as pseudo-C, the result differs depending on whether myevlod is an int (5/2 = 2; FOR AGAINST FOR AGAINST PRESENT) or a float (5.0/2 = 2.5; FOR AGAINST FOR AGAINST FOR plus invalid votes of AGAINST and PRESENT). Although Rule 2156 only allows EVLODs to be integers, if a higher power Rule sets an EVLOD to something that is not an integer, Rule 2156 will allow it to remain such (and it will be required to be reported on) for the remainder of the week. Good point. I'll consider the first four votes to be clearly identified, and the remaining vote(s) to be unclear. Which is for all practical purposes equivalent to Quazie's stated intent anyway, since the additional PRESENT vote is irrelevant to the outcome. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5636-5639
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:40 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 5637 O1 1Quazie Agora is my conditional value I change my vote to ENDORSE Agora x4 I don't think this works; under no circumstances can a rule take effect before the votes on it are counted, so relying on a definition that would be created by a rule in a conditional vote should fail regardless of whether the rule actually passes. I thought that ENDORSE Agora was already defined.. I remember seeing it somewhere.. maybe it was in a proto and I got confused and thought that it was in a rule..
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5636-5639
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought that ENDORSE Agora was already defined.. I remember seeing it somewhere.. maybe it was in a proto and I got confused and thought that it was in a rule.. Umm, you saw it in the proposal you're voting on conditionally.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5636-5639
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought that ENDORSE Agora was already defined.. I remember seeing it somewhere.. maybe it was in a proto and I got confused and thought that it was in a rule.. Umm, you saw it in the proposal you're voting on conditionally. I could have sworn I saw it somewhere else..
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5636-5639
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought that ENDORSE Agora was already defined.. I remember seeing it somewhere.. maybe it was in a proto and I got confused and thought that it was in a rule.. Umm, you saw it in the proposal you're voting on conditionally. I could have sworn I saw it somewhere else.. I'm a bit tired right now. Agora's not a good game to play while tired.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5636-5639
On Monday 14 July 2008 08:40:02 am Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 5637 O1 1Quazie Agora is my conditional value I change my vote to ENDORSE Agora x4 I don't think this works; under no circumstances can a rule take effect before the votes on it are counted, so relying on a definition that would be created by a rule in a conditional vote should fail regardless of whether the rule actually passes. In the specific case of a definition (as opposed to a CAN), the proposal under vote may provide sufficient context for a local synonym.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5636-5639
Wooble wrote: On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 5637 O1 1Quazie Agora is my conditional value I change my vote to ENDORSE Agora x4 I don't think this works; under no circumstances can a rule take effect before the votes on it are counted, so relying on a definition that would be created by a rule in a conditional vote should fail regardless of whether the rule actually passes. I suspect the intent to use the proposed method as a local definition is reasonably clear. Rule 2127's existing definition of endorsing only covers endorsing another voter, so definitely doesn't apply here. Sgeo wrote: On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought that ENDORSE Agora was already defined.. I remember seeing it somewhere.. maybe it was in a proto and I got confused and thought that it was in a rule.. Umm, you saw it in the proposal you're voting on conditionally. I could have sworn I saw it somewhere else.. Quazie has used a similar local definition in some of eir previous votes, just as some players used the de facto definition of endorse player before that was legislated.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5636-5639
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Sgeo wrote: On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought that ENDORSE Agora was already defined.. I remember seeing it somewhere.. maybe it was in a proto and I got confused and thought that it was in a rule.. Umm, you saw it in the proposal you're voting on conditionally. I could have sworn I saw it somewhere else.. I'm a bit tired right now. Agora's not a good game to play while tired. Don't worry, voting on a conditional that can't be resolved without the result of the vote is very Agoran. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5636-5639
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 3:39 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SPLIT DECISION should be evaluated as follows:
---
for (int i = 0; i myevlod/2; i ++)
{
vote FOR;
vote AGAINST;
}
vote PRESENT;
---
In other words, you vote cycle [FOR, AGAINST]?
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
The proposal was an ordinary proposal. Thus, I can vote up to my
evlod on it. Thus i vote an equal number of FORs and AGAINSTs and if
there are any left over I vote PRESENT.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5636-5639
comex wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If a proposal is Democratic I vote FOR it.
If a proposal is written by me I vote FORx5 on it.
if a proposal does not fit into the above two categories I vote SPLIT
DECISION on it.
SPLIT DECISION should be evaluated as follows:
---
for (int i = 0; i myevlod/2; i ++)
{
vote FOR;
vote AGAINST;
}
vote PRESENT;
H. Assessor root, if I were you, I would reject this definition as too
complicated, especially considering that none of the votes are
conditional and Quazie might have without too much effort cast them
explicitly.
I cannot fathom the former contestmaster of Brainfuck Golf making a
reasonable case that e was unable to understand Quazie's intent here.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5636-5639
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:42 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If a proposal is Democratic I vote FOR it.
If a proposal is written by me I vote FORx5 on it.
if a proposal does not fit into the above two categories I vote SPLIT
DECISION on it.
SPLIT DECISION should be evaluated as follows:
---
for (int i = 0; i myevlod/2; i ++)
{
vote FOR;
vote AGAINST;
}
vote PRESENT;
H. Assessor root, if I were you, I would reject this definition as too
complicated, especially considering that none of the votes are
conditional and Quazie might have without too much effort cast them
explicitly.
It seems clear enough too me.
-root
I'm glad, I didn't intend to do anything that spectacular, just
something more interesting than PRESENT, with the same net effect.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5636-5639
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
for (int i = 0; i myevlod/2; i ++)
{
vote FOR;
vote AGAINST;
}
vote PRESENT;
It seems clear enough too me.
For one thing, Quazie's EVLOD is 5, right? Assuming we treat this as
pseudo-C, the result differs depending on whether myevlod is an int
(5/2 = 2; FOR AGAINST FOR AGAINST PRESENT) or a float (5.0/2 = 2.5;
FOR AGAINST FOR AGAINST FOR plus invalid votes of AGAINST and
PRESENT). Although Rule 2156 only allows EVLODs to be integers, if a
higher power Rule sets an EVLOD to something that is not an integer,
Rule 2156 will allow it to remain such (and it will be required to be
reported on) for the remainder of the week.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5636-5639
On Jul 14, 2008, at 7:04 PM, Quazie wrote: The proposal was an ordinary proposal. Thus, I can vote up to my evlod on it. Thus i vote an equal number of FORs and AGAINSTs and if there are any left over I vote PRESENT. Then maybe we should define SUPPOSE as exactly that simple wording. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5636-5639
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:39 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
for (int i = 0; i myevlod/2; i ++)
{
vote FOR;
vote AGAINST;
}
vote PRESENT;
It seems clear enough too me.
For one thing, Quazie's EVLOD is 5, right? Assuming we treat this as
pseudo-C, the result differs depending on whether myevlod is an int
(5/2 = 2; FOR AGAINST FOR AGAINST PRESENT) or a float (5.0/2 = 2.5;
FOR AGAINST FOR AGAINST FOR plus invalid votes of AGAINST and
PRESENT). Although Rule 2156 only allows EVLODs to be integers, if a
higher power Rule sets an EVLOD to something that is not an integer,
Rule 2156 will allow it to remain such (and it will be required to be
reported on) for the remainder of the week.
If the assessor deems it unclear that I wanted integer division, i can
and will repost with an appropriate cast.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5636-5639
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:07 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:39 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
for (int i = 0; i myevlod/2; i ++)
{
vote FOR;
vote AGAINST;
}
vote PRESENT;
It seems clear enough too me.
For one thing, Quazie's EVLOD is 5, right? Assuming we treat this as
pseudo-C, the result differs depending on whether myevlod is an int
(5/2 = 2; FOR AGAINST FOR AGAINST PRESENT) or a float (5.0/2 = 2.5;
FOR AGAINST FOR AGAINST FOR plus invalid votes of AGAINST and
PRESENT). Although Rule 2156 only allows EVLODs to be integers, if a
higher power Rule sets an EVLOD to something that is not an integer,
Rule 2156 will allow it to remain such (and it will be required to be
reported on) for the remainder of the week.
If the assessor deems it unclear that I wanted integer division, i can
and will repost with an appropriate cast.
Actually, I think I'll leave it regardless. It seems like the first 4
votes aren't ambiguous, but the 5th might be. The potential ambiguity
of the 5th vote shouldn't make the first 4 ambiguous.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5636-5639
comex wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
for (int i = 0; i myevlod/2; i ++)
{
vote FOR;
vote AGAINST;
}
vote PRESENT;
It seems clear enough too me.
For one thing, Quazie's EVLOD is 5, right? Assuming we treat this as
pseudo-C, the result differs depending on whether myevlod is an int
(5/2 = 2; FOR AGAINST FOR AGAINST PRESENT) or a float (5.0/2 = 2.5;
FOR AGAINST FOR AGAINST FOR plus invalid votes of AGAINST and
PRESENT). Although Rule 2156 only allows EVLODs to be integers, if a
higher power Rule sets an EVLOD to something that is not an integer,
Rule 2156 will allow it to remain such (and it will be required to be
reported on) for the remainder of the week.
Given two plausible interpretations, one of which matches both EVLOD's
rule-defined type and Quazie's stated intent, I agree that that
interpretation should be used.
