Levi Stephen wrote:
>Allow all First-class players to join contests as a minimum requirement.
Might want to add: the contest agreement must be published before
anyone becomes a party to it; the agreement must not distinguish between
contestants unfairly.
-zefram
On 8/29/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Similarly, announcing "I pick up a rock" is not an action that results
> > in myself holding a rock.
>
> But in our case, it does. What results in a vote being cast?
> The announcement? The noting by Assessor? The Reporting of the vote?
> Ou
comex wrote:
On 8/29/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You confuse cause and effect. The game doesn't make the statement itself
"true", the statement makes the game condition true, if the game allows.
True. Right now,
I vote FOR
is a statement I believe is false. However, if this
The purpose here is to provide a mechanism where unfair contests can be stopped.
Not sure of the best wording to take points earned in a bad contest away from
players and also to stop that contest.
I have taken the approach here that the agreement that defines the contest still
exists, but no
comex wrote:
On 8/29/07, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No points may be awarded by the contestmaster of a contest that is
declared a Shenanigan.
Ever?
Well, I would assume, after the contest was declared a Shenanigan, they would
remove themselves from that contest,
On 8/29/07, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No points may be awarded by the contestmaster of a contest that is
> declared a Shenanigan.
Ever?
What if they've already won?
>Any player MAY delcare a Contest a Shenanigan With 1 Agoran Consent.
With 1 Agoran Consent is
Allow all First-class players to join contests as a minimum requirement.
{{{
In Rule 2136 replace the following text:
A contest is an agreement that identifies itself as such, and
identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster; all other
parties are its contestants.
with:
On Aug 29, 2007, at 5:53 AM, Zefram wrote:
[Should actually move the clause to a separate +I) section;
"I" should be reserved for indigo. I suggest "N" for infrared.
Or if doing so doesn't create confusion, IR.
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
Osc-R-MYR-4
On 8/29/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You confuse cause and effect. The game doesn't make the statement itself
> "true", the statement makes the game condition true, if the game allows.
True. Right now,
I vote FOR
is a statement I believe is false. However, if this is a message
comex wrote:
> I don't think the fallacy is legal or logical; I believe it's Goethe
> et al's grammatical fallacy that "I vote FOR" is not a statement.
There is no et al. It is all myself.
I may have mispoke, it is strictly speaking a "statement", but it is not
a statement that can be meaning
On 8/29/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I vote OBJECT.
This is getting old.
On 8/29/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is also why any attempt to define statements like "I vote
> 1000 times" as perjury are logically flawed, even if such
> attempted actions are made with reckless disregard for whether
> they are possible.
I disagree.
I vote FOR.
I am voting
root wrote:
On 8/29/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
comex wrote:
I submit the following proposal:
Proposal: Refactor regulation
(AI = 3, please)
Murphy is a coauthor of this proposal.
Why? And why did those who voted AGAINST it do so? Perhaps this one
could do with some more co
root wrote:
> The rules seem quite
> clear to me that it is the act of announcing an action that makes it
> so, not performing it.
We are in agreement here, in practical terms. What I'm saying is that
an "action announcement" is neither true nor false. Take the following
post:
1. I am about t
On 8/29/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/29/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I retract this vote and vote AGAINST x 11 on P5190.
> > I retract this vote and vote FOR on P5195.
>
> If I didn't have a complete lack of VCs, I could bribe people too.
Hmm, I should have thought t
On 8/29/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I retract this vote and vote AGAINST x 11 on P5190.
> I retract this vote and vote FOR on P5195.
If I didn't have a complete lack of VCs, I could bribe people too.
On 8/29/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A certain logical fallacy that has plagued agora for a long time
> makes this impossible, as long as we accept it.
More of a metaphysical fallacy than a logical one, I think.
> If we accept "I say I do, therefore I do", then "game actions"
> ca
comex wrote:
> perform game actions anyway, or otherwise publish true statements.
A certain logical fallacy that has plagued agora for a long time
makes this impossible, as long as we accept it.
If we accept "I say I do, therefore I do", then "game actions"
cannot be true or false. The act of
On 8/29/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I vote SUPPORT. At least wait for our sole knave to weigh in on the
> discussion (in a-d, so as to avoid further entangling the issue).
Sorry, I figured that I should judge quickly so as to reduce the time
that our sole knave must wait to conside
On 8/29/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex wrote:
>
> > On 8/29/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I concur with the Initiator's arguments and enter a judgement of TRUE.
> >
> > I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this.
>
> I vote SUPPORT. At least wait for our sole knave
On 8/29/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex wrote:
>
> > I submit the following proposal:
> >
> > Proposal: Refactor regulation
> > (AI = 3, please)
> >
> > Murphy is a coauthor of this proposal.
>
> Why? And why did those who voted AGAINST it do so? Perhaps this one
> could do with
comex wrote:
On 8/29/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I concur with the Initiator's arguments and enter a judgement of TRUE.
I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this.
I vote SUPPORT. At least wait for our sole knave to weigh in on the
discussion (in a-d, so as to avoid further enta
comex wrote:
On 8/29/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
comex wrote:
But it is still a quote.
Quotation is an aspect of its construction, yes. That doesn't exempt
it from R2149.
I CFJ, barring Zefram, on the statement:
A part of a message sent to a Public Forum that is quoting another
m
comex wrote:
I submit the following proposal:
Proposal: Refactor regulation
(AI = 3, please)
Murphy is a coauthor of this proposal.
Why? And why did those who voted AGAINST it do so? Perhaps this one
could do with some more cooking time.
Ian Kelly wrote:
>> 5193 Di 2Zefram calendar cleanup
>AGAINST. Could cause R2149-related problems due to the imprecision of
>our clocks.
Interesting point. I think we've likely got such a problem already, if
we have it at all. We should really have a rule about interpretation
of emai
On 8/28/07, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Host registered in the message here:
> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2007-August/007263.html
Oops, thanks for the catch.
> The Host may also be deregistered, as it terminates when a player wins. This
> de
On 8/29/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex wrote:
> >[To be proposed if CFJ 1738 is judged TRUE.
>
> Were you aware of the rights issue when making P5147? If you didn't
> expect KNAVE status to conflict with R101, what about FOOL status which
> leaves less wiggle room?
Nope, I didn't re
comex wrote:
>But it is still a quote.
Quotation is an aspect of its construction, yes. That doesn't exempt
it from R2149.
-zefram
On 8/29/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A "TTttPF" means that the main body is not a "mere quote". It
> incorporates the quoted text into the primary context of the message,
> where it is very much relevant to R2149.
But it is still a quote.
Peekee wrote:
>count as a false statement but still perform the action?
Difficult to say. It's not clear to me whether that actually performs
the action, since the truth value of the whole is independent of whether
the voting part is true or not.
I'm inclined to say that a statement that takes a
comex wrote:
>actually makes it relatively easy (unfortunately) for a knave to
>perform game actions anyway, or otherwise publish true statements.
>For example, a TTttPF is generally accepted as performing actions even
>though the main body of the message is a quote, and therefore
>irrelevant to Ru
Would
{{
I vote as follows...
and
1 + 1 = 3
}}
count as a false statement but still perform the action?
Quoting comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 8/29/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Prohibiting a player from posting true
statements thus denies em the right to take many game actions, whi
comex wrote:
>[To be proposed if CFJ 1738 is judged TRUE.
Were you aware of the rights issue when making P5147? If you didn't
expect KNAVE status to conflict with R101, what about FOOL status which
leaves less wiggle room?
>Enact a new Rule, at Power=2, titled "Freedom of Speech":
> Freedom
On 8/29/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Prohibiting a player from posting true
> statements thus denies em the right to take many game actions, which is
> a major aspect of participation in the public forum.
Gratuitous arguments:
The last paragraph of 2149:
Merely quoting a statement
Proto-Proposal: Neigh
AI: 3
[To be proposed if CFJ 1738 is judged TRUE. Removes a person's rights, whee!]
Amend Rule 101 by removing item vi., and renumbering accordingly.
Amend Rule 478 by removing the paragraph:
Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of
any no
proto-proposal: patent title award
AI: 2
{{{
Amend rule 2126 by appending to the list of ways that VCs can be
gained (and lost, if both are in a single list) the new item
(+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet
VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlie
proto-proposal: patent title cleanup
AI: 1
{{{
Revoke every instance of the patent title "Zeitgeist" from every
bearer of it.
[As I recall, the Zeitgeist title was defined to be revoked from the
previous bearer each time it was awarded. It's not defined now, and
it's not obvious whether it was
Ed Murphy wrote:
> each coauthor named in the proposal gains one Infrared VC
I pondered doing that, but I fear it would encourage a lot of false
coauthor declarations. The coauthor award is in effect discretionary,
so it had better be a common colour.
>[Should actually move the clause to a
38 matches
Mail list logo
