On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 01:19 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote:
I cause Rule 2380 to cause Rule 2361 to become a Slave Golem.
I CFJ { Rule 2361 is a Slave Golem. }
If Rule 2361 is a Slave Golem, I cause Rule 2380 to transfer it from the
LFD to me.
Arguments:
The only reason I can think of that
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
Arguments: this fails due to rule 2150; a rule needs power at least 2 to
define an entity as a person. Defining a rule as a golem is defining it
to be a person, among other things.
Arguments: As I mentioned on IRC, clearly if
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 2:36 AM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
Proposal: New Beginnings (AI=3)
Generally, I was going to respond negatively, criticizing the extra
complexity introduced when the latest batch of changes might finally
produce a solid basis for gameplay (unlike
Proto-proto-proposal-sketch the first: Define almost everything
(rules, currency, messages, fora...) as a person and see what goes
boom. Preferably allow them to become players in some way. Replace
Golems with this or something.
Proto-proto-proposal-sketch the second: Give me back Gmail's old
On Wed, 10 Apr 2013, omd wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 2:36 AM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
wrote:
Proposal: New Beginnings (AI=3)
Generally, I was going to respond negatively, criticizing the extra
complexity introduced when the latest batch of changes might finally
produce
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I am personally with Wes on this in that we need a clean sweep of personhood
(raise the personhood definition security to 3 in rule 2150, state
right out only first-class persons can be players, then delete all
Hi folks,
I think the current officer system is a key point of our malaise.
To wit, we've figured out that offices can lie vacant, and then
someone can deputize when they feel like it, and no game penalties.
This leads to out-of-sight, out-of-mind; I think lapses in Props
and Rubles can be
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Hi folks,
I think the current officer system is a key point of our malaise.
To wit, we've figured out that offices can lie vacant, and then
someone can deputize when they feel like it, and no game penalties.
This
On Wed, 10 Apr 2013, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I am personally with Wes on this in that we need a clean sweep of personhood
(raise the personhood definition security to 3 in rule 2150, state
right out only first-class
But what do we do with Offices that are Vacant right now? I mean you can't
force first-class players to held Offices i think.
Tomas
2013/4/10 Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu
wrote:
Hi folks,
I think the
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:51 AM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
I intend, with notice, to cause Rule 2380 to enact a new rule with the same
text as Rule 2380.
Please tell us what you intend to accomplish with this dictatorship
and when you intend it to end. Permanent
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
Please tell us what you intend to accomplish with this dictatorship
and when you intend it to end. Permanent dictatorships are bad form.
Actually, come to think of it, it's pretty clear that you intend to
implement your
On Wed, 10 Apr 2013, Tysger B. wrote:
But what do we do with Offices that are Vacant right now? I mean you can't
force first-class players to held Offices i think.
Tomas
Not right now.
In the past we had an office (the Speaker) which wasn't allowed
to be vacant. The person holding it
On Apr 10, 2013 12:45 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu
wrote:
Please tell us what you intend to accomplish with this dictatorship
and when you intend it to end. Permanent dictatorships are bad form.
Actually,
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 1:42 AM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
wrote:
I cause Rule 2380 to cause Rule 2361 to become a Slave Golem.
Criminal case: Rule 2361 has violated Rule 101 by failing to treat
Agora right good
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Wes Contreras w...@antitribu.com wrote:
We call for judgment on the following statement:
scshunt CAN, by announcement, cause a proposal to take effect.
We believe this statement to be false, as it conflicts with Rule 106,
which states:
If there is no
Arguments: That clause was intended to allow scshunt to cause a high-AI
proposal that had previously been adopted (so high-Power) to take effect again.
It was ruled in CFJ 3277 that this constitutes a substantive change to the
proposal and so fails.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 10, 2013, at
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
The Proposal Pool contains the following proposals:
AI CHAMBER AUTHOR TITLE
1.0 Ordinary omd Plan B
The above proposal is undistributed because its AI is too small for it
to be effective.
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
I submit a proposal, titled Seventy-Three Ninety-Five: In Rule 2367
Messy Statements, replace inaccurate and incorrect with
nonsensical and meaningless.
Arguments: considering both a statement and its negation to be
On Apr 10, 2013 4:02 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu
wrote:
I submit a proposal, titled Seventy-Three Ninety-Five: In Rule 2367
Messy Statements, replace inaccurate and incorrect with
nonsensical and meaningless.
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
Arguments: for Agoran Decisions that do not have an outcome of
ADOPTED, I think the answer is uncontroversially FALSE. For Agoran
Decisions that do have an outcome of ADOPTED (and, in particular, ones
with a Power
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 4:00 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
This might work, although I don't see anything particularly broken
about the current version.
I'm mainly thinking about the confused circumstances surrounding CFJ
3244. No harm was done, but I still think the current state of
I support.
2013/4/10 woggle woggl...@gmail.com
On 4/10/13 12:45 , Tanner Swett wrote:
[snip]
7382 1.0 Plutocra omd Плутократия!
I intend, with 2 Elder support, to make the decision to adopt Proposal 7382
Gerontocratic.
I intend, with 3 Agoran consent, to make the decision
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Tysger B. tysg...@gmail.com wrote:
I support.
It's not clear whether you're supporting both intents, or just one or
the other (although, since you're not an Elder, it would be reasonable
to assume you're supporting only the second intent). (Also, messages
sent to
On Wed, 10 Apr 2013, omd wrote:
7372 1.0 Ordinary G. Monthly Dispatches
AGAINST, I think this just makes it part of both reports.
I'm pretty sure R2143 disagrees with you, but if you're taking
R2143 into account let me know your reasoning. -G.
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Wes Contreras w...@antitribu.com wrote:
This is a case where comma placement parses the sentence quite differently.
If there is no [[[Agoran Decision to adopt a particular proposal that
has an outcome of ADOPTED]]], that proposal CANNOT take effect, rules
to
My votes:
IDAI CHAMBER AUTHOR TITLE
7364 1.0 Ordinary G. Ribbon Evolution
AGAINST
7365 1.0 Ordinary RoujoMarket Failure
PRESENT
7366 1.0 Ordinary RoujoCascading Market Failure
PRESENT
7367 3.0 Ordinary scshunt Series Reboot
AGAINST
7368
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
I do not disagree with you, but that was never the intent of that
sentence. The intent is to re-enact an already-enacted proposal.
Intent is irrelevant. The Rules guide play as written, not as intended.
--Wes
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Wes Contreras w...@antitribu.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
wrote:
I do not disagree with you, but that was never the intent of that
sentence. The intent is to re-enact an already-enacted proposal.
Intent
On Wed, 10 Apr 2013, Tysger B. wrote:
I realised i sent it to the wrong list. I am deeply sorry!
This is such a common mistake (for old hands as well as new) that it
has a common abbreviation: NTTPF (Not To The Public forum) or, when
you resend it, noting PF (This Time To The Public
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
wrote:
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
Trading card holdings
=
CoE: You are not the
On 10 April 2013 22:55, Wes Contreras w...@antitribu.com wrote:
Intent is irrelevant. The Rules guide play as written, not as intended.
The courts can take intent into account. Agora is a strange place.
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 10 April 2013 22:55, Wes Contreras w...@antitribu.com wrote:
Intent is irrelevant. The Rules guide play as written, not as intended.
The courts can take intent into account. Agora is a strange place.
No
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
Technically, there's no error, as I never said I was the CBG (except
in the subject line, which doesn't count).
There is, because your
On Wed, 10 Apr 2013, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 10 April 2013 22:55, Wes Contreras w...@antitribu.com wrote:
Intent is irrelevant. The Rules guide play as written, not as intended.
The courts can take intent
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Legislative intent isn't particularly useful if it's just the author of
the Rule and the Rule is untested (because everyone who voted for it may
have read it differently, so the question is whose intent?). If the
Rule
36 matches
Mail list logo
