On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 10:27 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend, without 3 Objections, to amend the Agoran Civil Service
contract by replacing its entire text with This contract immediately
terminates itself.
On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 18:05 -0400, ihope wrote:
But I might as well be more specific. It's inappropriate on CFJs 1980
and 1982 because paradox escalation, being bad for the game, is
prevented by rule 217.
Paradox escalation isn't bad for the game, because we have a CFJ
judgement of UNDECIDABLE
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 15:30 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The great simplification purposefully dropped this but didn't replace
it with anything, on the grounds that doing such would make it part of
game custom and
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 16:09 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
This I the a CFJ. statement: is on CFJ
There is no CFJ with the text This is a statement, so this lacks
sufficient information to be effective, as far as I can tell.
--
ais523
comex wrote:
I imported Zefram's rules_text thing and the RCS to make a little
rule-history page:
http://agora.qoid.us/rule
This will be more useful when I add diffs, which will be soonish.
Requires Javascript, because I'm too lazy to make it not. Thoughts?
Add something like
comex wrote:
I imported Zefram's rules_text thing and the RCS to make a little
rule-history page:
http://agora.qoid.us/rule
This will be more useful when I add diffs, which will be soonish.
Requires Javascript, because I'm too lazy to make it not. Thoughts?
More notes:
* The list of
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Add something like Differences between /2 and /3 at the top. And
color-code the text added/removed, with an explanatory legend.
I'm not really liking Text_Diff, which is what's used now for the
diffs. It seems to get confused
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 11:31 AM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is the contract in question powerful enough to terminate itself?
Contractual self-termination is R2198, which is powerful enough to
allow the contract change (it is, in fact, the same rule that secures
contract changes in the
2008/9/20 Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I judge 2154 TRUE and 2155 FALSE.
Proto: The CotC can refuse any CFJ regarding rule 104 or the First Speaker.
On Sat, 2008-09-20 at 22:04 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
2008/9/20 Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I judge 2154 TRUE and 2155 FALSE.
Proto: The CotC can refuse any CFJ regarding rule 104 or the First Speaker.
Quite possibly that would violate R101.
--
ais523
2008/9/20 ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Quite possibly that would violate R101.
--
ais523
If it does then so does the 5 CFJ thing
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/9/20 ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Quite possibly that would violate R101.
--
ais523
If it does then so does the 5 CFJ thing
And, as I was persuaded of when I asked about excess CFJs, if that
should ever come up then
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
2008/9/20 ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Quite possibly that would violate R101.
--
ais523
If it does then so does the 5 CFJ thing
That's why the wording of R101 clause is as it is; if you're told you
can re-initiate on the same subject next week then
Quite possibly that would violate R101.
If it does then so does the 5 CFJ thing
That's why the wording of R101 clause is as it is; if you're told you
can re-initiate on the same subject next week then you still have
a reasonable expectation of resolution with minor delay (but still in
On Sat, 2008-09-20 at 16:27 -0500, Pavitra wrote:
Quite possibly that would violate R101.
If it does then so does the 5 CFJ thing
That's why the wording of R101 clause is as it is; if you're told you
can re-initiate on the same subject next week then you still have
a reasonable
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 3:58 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I submit the following proposal (AI=3, II=1):
Add a rule with the following text, and set its power to 3:
{{{
Any player can make arbitrary changes to the rules with 12 Support.
}}}
Very strongly AGAINST.
-root
On Sat, 2008-09-20 at 16:31 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 3:58 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I submit the following proposal (AI=3, II=1):
Add a rule with the following text, and set its power to 3:
{{{
Any player can make arbitrary changes to the rules with
I remember that things seemed like they were occuring live when Olipro
joined and I was trying for the Win by Extortion. What other events in
Agoran history have had these sort of live-action events?
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
2008/9/20 ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Quite possibly that would violate R101.
--
ais523
If it does then so does the 5 CFJ thing
That's why the wording of R101 clause is as it is;
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 4:34 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still have a strong feeling that Agora needs some sort of safety valve
to escape from situations where the normal proposal system doesn't work,
maybe after
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 6:04 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any player can make arbitrary changes to the rules with 12 Support.
Not much of an escape clause when it depends on a Power=1 rule to
define player. Swap player for person and you're still
depending on multiple Power=2 rules
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
2008/9/21 Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Do I have to do anything now to take care of crimes I committed back then?
To the best of my knowledge, you are a free man.
Blot crimes have ceased to exist, so everyone who left the game with blots
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 6:42 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Implicitly agreeing to a contract doesn't actually work, but one example
would be me posting to a-b (or better, putting into the ruleset):
{{{
This is a contract. Any player of Agora who does not opt out of this
contract in the
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, comex wrote:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 6:42 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Implicitly agreeing to a contract doesn't actually work, but one example
would be me posting to a-b (or better, putting into the ruleset):
{{{
This is a contract. Any player of Agora who does
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, comex wrote:
Really, the Agoran power system is completely broken. Any high-power
Rule that uses a term defined in a low-power Rule is potentially a
conduit for a power escalation by a scamster, and often is. Not
only do high-power Rules do often use such definitions
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 6:34 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still have a strong feeling that Agora needs some sort of safety valve
to escape from situations where the normal proposal system doesn't work,
maybe after seeing it happen to B Nomic at least twice in the last year.
B doesn't
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I humbly request for a list of those obligations of mine that are public.
I believe your only obligations are to act in accordance with the
contracts you're a party to (see one of ais523's Notary reports); to
judge, if
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 9:26 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 6:34 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still have a strong feeling that Agora needs some sort of safety valve
to escape from situations where the normal proposal system doesn't work,
maybe
On Saturday 20 September 2008 08:19:44 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
Nice example, since the creation of the fountain was due to such a
scam. It's called a ladder scam. This was the subject of my
thesis, and I believe Andre's as well. IIRC I think I recommended
at the time a tweak to R754 but I
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 9:19 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nice example, since the creation of the fountain was due to such a scam.
It's called a ladder scam. This was the subject of my thesis, and I
believe Andre's as well. IIRC I think I recommended at the time
a tweak to R754
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
On Saturday 20 September 2008 08:19:44 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
Nice example, since the creation of the fountain was due to such a
scam. It's called a ladder scam. This was the subject of my
thesis, and I believe Andre's as well. IIRC I think I
On Saturday 20 September 2008 08:13:45 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, comex wrote:
Is this the line to be drawn for such a strong term as
explicit?
Already very well and directly (almost identically) covered in CFJ
1290. -Goethe
Reading the arguments on 1290, it seems that the
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, comex wrote:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 9:19 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nice example, since the creation of the fountain was due to such a scam.
It's called a ladder scam. This was the subject of my thesis, and I
believe Andre's as well. IIRC I think I
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 9:13 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Already very well and directly (almost identically) covered in CFJ 1290.
-Goethe
Except that in this case, Judge solublefish repeatedly calls a message
Goethe sent for the sole purpose of (possibly) joining the Agora the
On Saturday 20 September 2008 08:51:14 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
making that broader adjustment was, for some reasons I don't quite
recall, the subject of some interesting discussion which never came
around to an agreed-upon fix.
-Goethe.
Proto-proto: Make power ordinal rather than cardinal, and
On Saturday 20 September 2008 20:32:06 ihope wrote:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I humbly request for a list of those obligations of mine that are public.
I believe your only obligations are to act in accordance with the
contracts you're a party
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
On Saturday 20 September 2008 08:13:45 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, comex wrote:
Is this the line to be drawn for such a strong term as
explicit?
Already very well and directly (almost identically) covered in CFJ
1290. -Goethe
Reading
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
On Saturday 20 September 2008 08:51:14 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
making that broader adjustment was, for some reasons I don't quite
recall, the subject of some interesting discussion which never came
around to an agreed-upon fix.
-Goethe.
Proto-proto:
On Saturday 20 September 2008 08:54:26 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
http://www.nomic.net/~nomicwiki/index.php/AgoraTheses doesn't
list any thesis of yours. Where can it be found?
Hrm, I don't know. It was about three computers ago on my end, the
only other place it ended up was on the mailing
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 9:59 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proto-proto: Make power ordinal rather than cardinal, and organize the
ruleset by power. Occasionally we would have rules like rules below
this one can be changed with AI = 2. Early (powerful) rules would
include defining
On Saturday 20 September 2008 08:05:42 pm comex wrote:
Really, the Agoran power system is completely broken. Any
high-power Rule that uses a term defined in a low-power Rule is
potentially a conduit for a power escalation by a scamster, and
often is.
On Thursday 09 January 2003 05:49:54 pm
On Saturday 20 September 2008 09:35:06 pm ihope wrote:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 9:59 PM, Ben Caplan wrote:
Proto-proto: Make power ordinal rather than cardinal, and
organize the ruleset by power. Occasionally we would have rules
like rules below this one can be changed with AI = 2. Early
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, comex wrote:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 6:42 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Implicitly agreeing to a contract doesn't actually work, but one example
would be me posting to a-b (or better, putting into
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 7:32 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, I can make random people recordkeepors, and no, you don't
actually have to keep track of the Five-Ton Anvil, since you're not an
office. I can make random offices recordkeepors, and they would have
to keep track of those
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 7:59 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proto-proto: Make power ordinal rather than cardinal, and organize the
ruleset by power. Occasionally we would have rules like rules below
this one can be changed with AI = 2. Early (powerful) rules would
include defining
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 9:26 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 6:34 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still have a strong feeling that Agora needs some sort of safety valve
to escape from situations where the normal proposal system doesn't work,
maybe
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 10:05 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, e ruled that knowingly giving implicit consent, with obvious intent
that it be consent, was close enough to explicit that it could be
considered explicit.
E ruled, if we are to take eir arguments literally, that all
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 11:37 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) Make rules ordinal by category. Rules in different categories are
incomparable precedence-wise. Additionally, rules cannot reference
terms, concepts, or entities defined in other categories without an
explicit import.
48 matches
Mail list logo
