Eris wrote:
On 5/7/07, Michael Slone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In an earlier draft, I limited the capacity to flip certain switches
to certain entities. I decided that people would complain about that,
so I changed it to the current version, where people can but may not
flip certain switches.
Michael Slone wrote:--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
(Why do I think I just got another entry in Maud's rotating quotes file?)
-- OscarMeyr, in agora-discussion
I love Maud's rotating quotes, they give me something extra to look
forward each day
On 5/8/07, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. I hate this terminology.
I don't understand your complaint.
--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
I flip such-and-such switch to mango
-- Murphy, in agora-discussion
On 5/8/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We need something akin to RFC 2119.
I have tried before with little success to introduce a semantics for
modal logic (or if you like, deontic logic) into Agora. Perhaps the
time has come?
--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
I tried once, but
Ed Murphy wrote:
We need something akin to RFC 2119.
Yes please. In some of the recent protos and rule interpretation disputes
I found myself lamenting that the language isn't formal enough. I'd like
to see a clear distinction between permission/prohibition, capacity,
mechanism, and
Taral wrote:
2. I want to be the first to transfer a Trinket to itself.
I did (or at least attempted) that back when I left in a huff. CFJ 1063.
-zefram
Maud wrote:
When a valid Notice of Transfer is published, it has the effect
of flipping the owner switch of each of the Goods to the
Recipient.
Please be very specific on the following: If other rules (or contracts)
forbid certain transfers, are the NoTs valid (transfer
Zefram wrote:
Not particularly. Fungibility is a pain to work with. Currencies were
always fundamentally fungible, but implicit rounding and the MUQ were
invented to make them more managable. I suggest using a strictly
quantised model this time round.
fungible ne divisible. By fungible,
Zefram wrote:
I think it's dangerous to change interpretation in such a blanket
manner. I think it would be better to define formal terminology by
which individual rules can explicate illegal vs impossible, and then
amend rules piecemeal to use the formal structure.
Illegal must be
On 5/8/07, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please be very specific on the following: If other rules (or contracts)
forbid certain transfers, are the NoTs valid (transfer happens but
breaks a rule) or invalid (transfers never happens).
The legality of a transfer has no bearing on the
Maud wrote:
The legality of a transfer has no bearing on the validity of a Notice
of Transfer.
So if a later rule B says A player may not transfer Fee to Foo
then whether a successful transfer overrules rule B would depend on
the relative precedence of the two rules and may differ case-by
Zefram wrote:
Usually,
if foo is something that has significance only due to the rules then
it is taken to be impossible.
I agree with Maud. I can't find support in the Rules for us taking
things that way.
Ultimately the phrase is ambiguous,
subject to interpretation by CFJ.
Everything
On 5/8/07, Michael Slone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/8/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We need something akin to RFC 2119.
I have tried before with little success to introduce a semantics for
modal logic (or if you like, deontic logic) into Agora. Perhaps the
time has come?
I think
On 5/8/07, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So if a later rule B says A player may not transfer Fee to Foo
then whether a successful transfer overrules rule B would depend on
the relative precedence of the two rules and may differ case-by
case. Messy.
No, rule B is prohibiting a transfer,
On May 8, 2007, at 1:05 AM, Michael Slone wrote:
--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
(Why do I think I just got another entry in Maud's rotating quotes
file?)
-- OscarMeyr, in agora-discussion
I *knew* that meta-reference would show up in eir quotes file, I just
didn't expect
On May 8, 2007, at 1:47 AM, Taral wrote:
On 5/8/07, Michael Slone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Each trinket has a switch for owner, with states nobody and all
entities. The owner switch of a trinket cannot be flipped
except by the publication of a valid Notice of Transfer.
2.
On May 7, 2007, at 9:36 PM, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
Oh wait -- R101 no longer says that we must obey the rules! Never
mind
Here's a proto to put that back in.
Proto: The Obedience Clause (AI=4)
Change the power of R101 to 4.
Retitle the rule Agoran Rights, Privileges, and
Zefram, is the following duplication in R1922 correct? Did we forget
to delete a paragraph (d)?
On May 3, 2007, at 1:32 AM, Zefram wrote:
(d) Champion, to be awarded to players who win the game.
(d) Champion, to be awarded to any player who wins the
game. The
Proto-Proposal: Mother, May I?
(AI = 3, please)
Create a rule titled Mother, May I? with Power 3 and this text:
The following terms are defined:
1. CANNOT (syn. IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID) Attempts to
perform the described action are unsuccessful.
2.
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
On May 8, 2007, at 1:47 AM, Taral wrote:
On 5/8/07, Michael Slone [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Each trinket has a switch for owner, with states nobody and
all
entities. The
owner switch of a trinket cannot be flipped
except by
20 matches
Mail list logo
