I propose that Rule 302, or a Rule formerly having had the number 302 (if
there is exactly one such rule) be amended to read Players whose proposals
are adopted shall receive 10 points.
Chuck
On 26 Jun 2013, at 04:57, Malcolm Ryan malco...@cse.unsw.edu.au wrote:
I propose that a rule be enacted reading:
Any player who proposes to amend, renumber or repeal rule 311 is deemed to
have forfeited the game.
I vote FOR this.
M
I vote against, as there is no longer any such rule.
On Wed, 2013-06-26 at 09:59 +0100, Charles Walker wrote:
On 26 Jun 2013, at 04:57, Malcolm Ryan malco...@cse.unsw.edu.au wrote:
I propose that a rule be enacted reading:
Any player who proposes to amend, renumber or repeal rule 311 is deemed to
have forfeited the game.
I vote FOR
I vote for this proposal.
--
Steve Gardner
via mobile
On 26 Jun 2013 18:21, Chuck Carroll games...@chuckcarroll.org wrote:
I propose that Rule 302, or a Rule formerly having had the number 302 (if
there is exactly one such rule) be amended to read “Players whose proposals
are adopted shall
On 26 Jun 2013, at 09:55, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 Jun 2013, at 03:05, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
Agora XX seems to be a huge success. I do think that we should go
ahead and end it on the 30th as we planned, but I would like to bring
it back
Ah nuts.
M
On 26/06/2013, at 6:59 PM, Charles Walker wrote:
On 26 Jun 2013, at 04:57, Malcolm Ryan malco...@cse.unsw.edu.au wrote:
I propose that a rule be enacted reading:
Any player who proposes to amend, renumber or repeal rule 311 is deemed to
have forfeited the game.
I vote FOR
I vote FOR.
M
On 25/06/2013, at 12:11 AM, Steven Gardner wrote:
I vote for this Proposal.
On 25 June 2013 00:10, Steven Gardner steven.gard...@monash.edu wrote:
I submit the following proposal:
Enact a new Rule which reads:
Within 24 hours of this Rule being enacted, the Speaker
It's been a bit too successful if you ask me!
Accordingly, I vote FOR all current proposals.
By the way, while I'm here I've been meaning to come back to Agora sometime to
get my Doctor of Nomic. Do you still have degrees? What do I have to do to be
awarded one?
Malcolm
On Wed, 2013-06-26 at 20:13 +1000, Malcolm Ryan wrote:
By the way, while I'm here I've been meaning to come back to Agora
sometime to get my Doctor of Nomic. Do you still have degrees? What do
I have to do to be awarded one?
We do (rule 1367).
In order to qualify, you need to publish a thesis
Would the original Nomic FAQ be a suitable thesis?
http://faqs.cs.uu.nl/na-dir/games/nomic-faq.html
It's curious. I played a lot of Agora back during my PhD days. At the time I
regarded it as a distraction from my 'important' work (doing research in
artificial intelligence). Now I teach game
I vote FOR this proposal.
Michael
On 26/06/13 6:20 PM, Chuck Carroll wrote:
I propose that Rule 302, or a Rule formerly having had the number 302
(if there is exactly one such rule) be amended to read “Players whose
proposals are adopted shall receive 10 points.”
Chuck
On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, Malcolm Ryan wrote:
Let's make this interesting.
I propose that a rule be enacted reading:
If a player proposes a rule change which is not adopted at the end of its
voting period, that player must immediately forfeit the game.
For.
Here I'll just number and repeat the three new proposals that were made.
You can vote by replying to this message, privately if you like.
I'll send out a full report shortly.
-Dan
344 (Yally):
Amend Rule 326 to read:
Each year on June 30th at 00:04:30 UTC +1200 , the game shall end,
and the
[Missed one...]
Here I'll just number and repeat the four new proposals that were made.
You can vote by replying to this message, privately if you like.
I'll send out a full report shortly.
-Dan
344 (Yally):
Amend Rule 326 to read:
Each year on June 30th at 00:04:30 UTC +1200 , the game
On 26 June 2013 13:03, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
[Missed one...]
Here I'll just number and repeat the four new proposals that were made.
You can vote by replying to this message, privately if you like.
I'll send out a full report shortly.
-Dan
344 (Yally):
Amend Rule 326 to read:
On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, Fool wrote:
Goethe's arguments:
Was thinking about this, it's interesting that this win attempt goes
along with our earlier discussion on legal versus mathematical. In a
mathematical sense, one could say that it was equally likely or
unlikely that omd sent the
For all of these.
--
Steve Gardner
via mobile
On 26 Jun 2013 22:03, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
[Missed one...]
Here I'll just number and repeat the four new proposals that were made.
You can vote by replying to this message, privately if you like.
I'll send out a full report shortly.
Good day Agorans,
Since last report, voting on proposals 331-341 closed.
Proposal 331 (omd) passed 5:1 (Walker, Chuck, omd, Yally, and ehird FOR;
Steve AGAINST). This amends rule 214 so that Judges are selected
randomly from among the Speaker and active players. omd receives 10
points and
As required by the new rule 340.
-Dan
Speaker:
Fool (Daniel Méhkeri fool1...@gmail.com)
Voters in order of registration:
June 18:
1. omd (c.ome...@gmail.com)
2. FSX (flameshadowxeros...@gmail.com)
3. Walker (Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com)
4. Chuck (Chuck Carroll
I vote AGAINST 345 and 346 (what does forfeit mean, and does it prevent
reregistration?)
I vote FOR 344.
Michael
On 26/06/13 10:00 PM, Fool wrote:
Here I'll just number and repeat the three new proposals that were made.
You can vote by replying to this message, privately if you like.
I'll
On 26/06/2013 12:07 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I was blocking on the term logician, that's a better choice. (Just had a
flashback to the day in grad school when I became a committed Bayesian,
maybe I was channeling).
Yeah man, you can get flashbacks from that sort of thing. Or so I've
heard, I
I invoke judgement on the following statement: The selection of a Judge
for this statement is a move whose legality cannot be determined with
finality.
Reasoning: Rule 331 reads, The Speaker shall choose Judges randomly from
the set of qualified players. The players qualified to judge a
I also vote FOR all current proposals, except those who currently have
a majority of AGAINST votes - I vote AGAINST on those.
Long Live Agora. =P
~ Roujo
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
It's been a bit too successful if you ask me!
On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, wrote:
I invoke judgement on the following statement: The selection of a Judge
for this statement is a move whose legality cannot be determined with
finality.
I think you need to wait until a purported selection actually occurs.
In any case, this might be enough
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, Charles Walker wrote:
On 26 Jun 2013, at 09:55, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 Jun 2013, at 03:05, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
Agora XX seems to be a huge success. I do think that we should go
ahead and end it on the 30th
Yes, it had occurred to me that Rule 219 is unclear if the move under
consideration has to be an actual or at least attempted move, or if a
hypothetical move is sufficient. If the latter, well, here it is. If the
former, then I needed to get the ball rolling by making a CFJ anyway.
(Although I
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, Fool wrote:
On 26/06/2013 12:07 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I was blocking on the term logician, that's a better choice. (Just had a
flashback to the day in grad school when I became a committed Bayesian,
maybe I was channeling).
Yeah man, you can get flashbacks
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, omd wrote:
Although there are no appeals, I do strenuously object to this judgement.
The default assumption is the default because it is
usually accurate. Unless you believe that my brother and I are not in
control of the theagoranundead Gmail account, something
I vote for 345-347 (think I already voted on 345)
344 I'll defer to speaker's opinion on ongoing-ness in future.
-Goethe
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, Malcolm Ryan wrote:
Would the original Nomic FAQ be a suitable thesis?
http://faqs.cs.uu.nl/na-dir/games/nomic-faq.html
It's curious. I played a lot of Agora back during my PhD days. At the time I
regarded it as a distraction from my 'important'
work (doing research
I also vote for each of 342-343.
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I vote for 345-347 (think I already voted on 345)
344 I'll defer to speaker's opinion on ongoing-ness in future.
-Goethe
CFJ: a player who forfeits the game can still vote and/or transfer points.
(Forfeiture isn't strictly defined. Does it mean completely drop out,
points zeroed, cease to be defined as a player? Or just give up on a
chance to win but remain a player, retain voting, etc? Just seeking
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, omd wrote:
On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, wrote:
I invoke judgement on the following statement: The selection of a Judge
for this statement is a move whose legality cannot be determined with
finality.
I think you need to wait until a purported
On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, wrote:
As for any ordering of actions occuring in the same message, that's
tradition (possibly law?) in Agora itself, but I don't know whether Agoran
tradition carries over to Agora XX.
By the way, I'm not saying that my principle would necessarily hold
in Agora
You should have injected them with an emergency hit of information theory.
Instant clarity.
--
Steve Gardner
via mobile
On 27 Jun 2013 02:08, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, Fool wrote:
On 26/06/2013 12:07 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I was blocking on the
Against.
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 6:43 AM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, Malcolm Ryan wrote:
Let's make this interesting.
I propose that a rule be enacted reading:
If a player proposes a rule change which is not adopted at the end of its
voting period, that
For.
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Michael Norrish
michael.norr...@nicta.com.au wrote:
I vote FOR this proposal.
Michael
On 26/06/13 6:20 PM, Chuck Carroll wrote:
I propose that Rule 302, or a Rule formerly having had the number 302
(if there is exactly one such rule) be amended to read
For.
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Jonathan Rouillard
jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote:
FOR. =)
~ Roujo
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:36 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
wrote:
I propose the following rule:
At 12:00 July 1 2013 UTC+1200, Agora XX ends and the player with the
On 26/06/2013 10:09 AM, games...@chuckcarroll.org wrote:
I invoke judgement on the following statement: The selection of a Judge
for this statement is a move whose legality cannot be determined with
finality.
By rule 331, I must randomly select from myself or those who voted on
the last
I used the word forfeit because it is already used in rule 113.
Blob
On 26/06/2013, at 11:20 PM, Michael Norrish wrote:
I vote AGAINST 345 and 346 (what does forfeit mean, and does it prevent
reregistration?)
I vote FOR 344.
Michael
On 26/06/13 10:00 PM, Fool wrote:
Here I'll just
Why not! I call for judgement on:
Roujo has cast valid votes on proposals by means of the message
quoted below.
On 26/06/2013 10:12 AM, Jonathan Rouillard wrote:
I also vote FOR all current proposals, except those who currently have
a majority of AGAINST votes - I vote AGAINST on those.
On 26/06/2013 3:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
CFJ: a player who forfeits the game can still vote and/or transfer points.
By 331, I must randomly select either myself or a voter on 341 (Goethe
was not one of them). My virtual 9-sided die comes up
omd
You have 24 hours.
-Dan
Shouldn't I have some points, at the very least from voting against a
passing proposal here?
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 6:05 AM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
Good day Agorans,
Since last report, voting on proposals 331-341 closed.
Proposal 331 (omd) passed 5:1 (Walker, Chuck, omd, Yally,
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 5:03 AM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
[Missed one...]
Here I'll just number and repeat the four new proposals that were made.
You can vote by replying to this message, privately if you like.
I'll send out a full report shortly.
-Dan
344 (Yally):
Amend Rule 326
On 26/06/2013 12:09 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I vote for 345-347 (think I already voted on 345)
344 I'll defer to speaker's opinion on ongoing-ness in future.
-Goethe
:VETO:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/06/2013 12:09 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I vote for 345-347 (think I already voted on 345)
344 I'll defer to speaker's opinion on ongoing-ness in future.
-Goethe
:VETO:
Presumably, we could change the speaker. After
On 26/06/2013 3:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
CFJ: a player who forfeits the game can still vote and/or transfer points.
(Forfeiture isn't strictly defined. Does it mean completely drop out,
points zeroed, cease to be defined as a player? Or just give up on a
chance to win but remain a player,
On 26/06/2013 4:30 PM, omd wrote:
On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, wrote:
As for any ordering of actions occuring in the same message, that's
tradition (possibly law?) in Agora itself, but I don't know whether
Agoran
tradition carries over to Agora XX.
By the way, I'm not saying
On 26/06/2013 6:42 PM, Flameshadowxeroshin wrote:
For.
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Jonathan Rouillard
jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote:
FOR. =)
~ Roujo
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:36 PM, Sean Huntscsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
I propose the following rule:
At 12:00 July 1 2013
On 26/06/2013 9:16 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
Shouldn't I have some points, at the very least from voting against a
passing proposal here?
The thing is, that rule (302) was amended (332), and then rule 305
prevents it from assigning points based on votes.
Still, it depends on what at the
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, Fool wrote:
On 26/06/2013 12:09 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
344 I'll defer to speaker's opinion on ongoing-ness in future.
-Goethe
:VETO:
Ok, I vote against 344. -Goethe
I judge that this statement is FALSE.
R207 is silent on the question of whether Roujo can can legally cast votes
in the manner e attempted. By R217 I must therefore be guided by game
custom and spirit of the game. Game custom is not sufficiently established
to be of use here. The spirit of this
I invoke judgement on the following statement: The assignment of Walker as
Judge for the statement The selection of a Judge for this statement is a
move whose legality cannot be determined with finality is a move whose
legality cannot be determined with finality.
Reasoning: same as before. This
54 matches
Mail list logo
