On 26/06/2013 11:29 PM, Chuck Carroll wrote:
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
Okay, so there's a proposal pending (345) which, if it passes, means
that if a proposal fails, the proposer forfeits.
And suddenly there are no proposals for me to distribute!
Hey, if you're not in the lead, and the rules don't change, you're going
to lose the game anyway. (And maybe Chuck
It'll be interesting if Michael rules that this statement is FALSE, on the
ground that the selection of a Judge for the earlier statement (and by
extension, his own selection as Judge) can be shown to be illegal.
On 27 June 2013 21:11, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/06/2013 11:29 PM,
Good day Agorans,
A correction from last report brought to my attention by Yally. It
does involve the disputed interpretation of the order of events when the
voting on multiple proposals closes simultaneously. I am going with
the interpretation that they pass sequentially in order I
On 27 June 2013 22:38, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
If I receive any proposals promptly, I will distribute.
H. Speaker,
I submit the following Proposals, separated by '==='.
===
Amend Rule 207 to read:
Voters may vote either for or against any proposal within its prescribed
voting
Some comments on this set of proposals:
1. I believe each one refers to a well-defined set of entities,
for which I have straightforward links (out of my control) that
should provide enough evidence to determine the answers. I will
publish the list right after the results of voting on these.
Bravo, Goethe!
Agora XX is wildly exceeding my expectations for it!
Steve
On 27 June 2013 23:25, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Some comments on this set of proposals:
1. I believe each one refers to a well-defined set of entities,
for which I have straightforward links (out
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote:
4. Mini-contest: If I am able (i.e. I am not knocked out of the
game), I will give half my points resulting from these proposals
to the first person to privately send me a complete list of the
entities referred to in these proposals. If no one gets
Ah, and I vote FOR all of 348-362 (on mine for 'fairness' sake :) ).
-Goethe
Some notes of my own on proposals 348-352:
On 27 June 2013 23:28, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
348 (Steve):
Amend Rule 207 to read:
Voters may vote either for or against any proposal within its
prescribed voting period. Only messages which clearly and explicitly
[Note which I request the Speaker to include:
At this point the best strategy to win is obviously to avoid
controversial proposals, and I suspect this might make me lose, but I
like this idea enough that I'm proposing it anyway. Basically, after
a winner is determined on the anniversary, allow
Proposal 344 (Yally) passes 5:3 with ehird, Steve, Michael, Yally, and
Chuck FOR; Walker, Goethe, and omd AGAINST. This amends rule 343. It
basically restores this poor rule to the original winning condition
(most points), and adds a clause to resume the game next year. Yally
gets 10 points
Given that Charles Walker did vote FOR, it doesn't matter if Chuck did vote
AGAINST.
On 28 June 2013 00:00, Steven Gardner steven.gard...@monash.edu wrote:
Charles Walker voted FOR and his vote is not recorded; Speaker Fool may
have confused the two 'Charles's. I've no record of Chuck voting
Charles Walker voted FOR and his vote is not recorded; Speaker Fool may
have confused the two 'Charles's. I've no record of Chuck voting on this
proposal publically, but e may of course have done so privately.
On 27 June 2013 23:48, games...@chuckcarroll.org wrote:
Proposal 344 (Yally) passes
Per my usual custom, I voted via private email to the Speaker (and my
votes were correctly recorded for 342-343 and 345-347). Fool's report does
have Walker listed as voting against, so if he just switched my vote with
Walker's, that doesn't affect passage of the proposal, but does affect
points.
On Thursday, June 27, 2013, Fool wrote:
CFJ: a player who forfeits the game can still vote and/or transfer points.
In most games, after a player loses or forfeits, e is no longer considered
a player and can no longer make any type of move, and Rule 113 concurs with
this in contrasting
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 24 June 2013 12:58, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
Arguments: I would say any number of wrappers would work.
I define f(n) to be I attempt to announce {{{, followed by f(n+1),
followed by }}}, whenever n
CFJ: Blob has forfeited.
The rule in question (345) states:
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.
Note that the wording is a requirement placed on the player to act, not
an automatic
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013, omd wrote:
The cycle length is initially 24 hours. On 30 June 2013, 00:00:00
+1200, and thereafter once the cycle length has passed since the last
reduction, the cycle length is reduced to half of its previous value.
On 31 June 2013, 00:00:00 +1200, the game ends.
If
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote:
CFJ: Blob has forfeited.
The rule in question (345) states:
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.
Note that the wording is a
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013, Jonathan Rouillard wrote:
I recuse G. from CFJ 3343.
Oh, right. Agora. I was just like: how could there be that
many CFJs in XX?
Really sorry!
proto (True Agora, not XX!) proposal:
The period of 14 days that ends upon the first day to end
after Agora's
On 27 Jun 2013, at 18:22, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013, Jonathan Rouillard wrote:
I recuse G. from CFJ 3343.
Oh, right. Agora. I was just like: how could there be that
many CFJs in XX?
Really sorry!
proto (True Agora, not XX!) proposal:
The
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013, Charles Walker wrote:
On 27 Jun 2013, at 18:22, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013, Jonathan Rouillard wrote:
I recuse G. from CFJ 3343.
Oh, right. Agora. I was just like: how could there be that
many CFJs in XX?
Really sorry!
On 26 June 2013 05:33, Malcolm Ryan malco...@cse.unsw.edu.au 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.
M
I register
On 27 June 2013 23:23, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 June 2013 05:33, Malcolm Ryan malco...@cse.unsw.edu.au 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
I vote FOR proposal 359.
-Tiger
On 27 June 2013 02:10, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
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
Argh **
Yes, Chuck did privately vote against 344. And no, Walker did vote
against, he changed his public for to a private against about 9 hours
later.
So it's actually 4:4, fail, we're back to rule 343. Yally did not get 10
points for proposing 344. Walker, Goethe, and omd did not
Goethe:
CFJ: Blob has forfeited.
331 makes me assign it randomly to me or one of the people who voted on
the last proposal, excluding the caller.
The last proposal was 347, on which 9 players voted. Goethe was one of
them. So was Blob. (hmm)
I'll go ahead and roll a virtual 8-sided die
On 27/06/2013 5:24 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
On 27 June 2013 23:23, Jonatan Kilhamnjonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 June 2013 05:33, Malcolm Ryanmalco...@cse.unsw.edu.au wrote:
Let's make this interesting.
I propose that a rule be enacted reading:
If a player proposes a rule change
On 27/06/2013 2:22 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
The emphasis is: A JUDGEMENT HAS NO FORCE TO ACTUALLY COMPEL A RESULT.
Unless it comes up UNDECIDABLE. Then you win!
I call for judgement on the following statement.
Blob does not have to forfeit under rule 345.
Reasoning:
Rule 345 says If a player proposes a rule change that is not adopted...
I made proposal 346 BEFORE this rule came into effect. Rule 108 forbids
retroactive application.
Blob
On
I call for judgment on the following statement:
At the 12:16am GMT on June 28 2013, Blob had not forfeited.
Reasoning: The rules make it clear that forfeiting is a voluntary player
action. Rule 345 says a player must forfeit. It does not say that they are
deemed to have forfeited.
Blob
On
Oh, Goethe has already CFJ'ed this. Oops.
Blob (on the lam)
On 28/06/2013, at 10:19 AM, Malcolm Ryan wrote:
I call for judgment on the following statement:
At the 12:16am GMT on June 28 2013, Blob had not forfeited.
Reasoning: The rules make it clear that forfeiting is a voluntary player
On 27/06/2013 8:19 PM, Malcolm Ryan wrote:
I call for judgment on the following statement:
At the 12:16am GMT on June 28 2013, Blob had not forfeited.
Reasoning: The rules make it clear that forfeiting is a voluntary player action. Rule 345 says a
player must forfeit. It does not say that
On 27/06/2013 8:15 PM, Malcolm Ryan wrote:
I call for judgement on the following statement.
Blob does not have to forfeit under rule 345.
Reasoning:
Rule 345 says If a player proposes a rule change that is not adopted...
I made proposal 346 BEFORE this rule came into effect. Rule 108 forbids
The argument (setting aside the retroactivity claim) is that Blob was
immediately required to forfeit. Not doing so would to be sure be violation
of the Rules, but it still can't happen unless Blob sends a message say
that e forfeits.
On 28 June 2013 10:32, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
On
On 28 June 2013 10:36, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
In this case, the effect was your forfeiture (or requirement to forfeit).
It was based on events that occurred prior, but the effect was not
retroactive.
I disagree. R345 describes a sequence of actions that lead to forfeiture.
To avoid
On 27/06/2013 8:43 PM, Steven Gardner wrote:
On 28 June 2013 10:36, Fool fool1...@gmail.com
mailto:fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
In this case, the effect was your forfeiture (or requirement to
forfeit). It was based on events that occurred prior, but the effect
was not retroactive.
I
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013, Fool wrote:
On 27/06/2013 2:22 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
The emphasis is: A JUDGEMENT HAS NO FORCE TO ACTUALLY COMPEL A RESULT.
Unless it comes up UNDECIDABLE. Then you win!
Well, we've defined undecidable as an officially resolved result, so that's
cool. :)
On 27/06/2013 8:37 PM, Steven Gardner wrote:
The argument (setting aside the retroactivity claim) is that Blob was
immediately required to forfeit. Not doing so would to be sure be
violation of the Rules, but it still can't happen unless Blob sends a
message say that e forfeits.
Okay, for the
I the matter of the CFJ of Chuck's that I have been assigned to judge, I return
a verdict of FALSE.
Obviously, this agrees with Charles Walker’s recent judgement, but I also think
he slightly misinterpreted the relevant rule, while simultaneously making
perfectly reasonable decisions about our
I'd say e remains a player with full rights to continue to play up until
the moment e forfeits.
On 28 June 2013 10:50, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/06/2013 8:37 PM, Steven Gardner wrote:
The argument (setting aside the retroactivity claim) is that Blob was
immediately required to
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013, Fool wrote:
On 27/06/2013 8:37 PM, Steven Gardner wrote:
The argument (setting aside the retroactivity claim) is that Blob was
immediately required to forfeit. Not doing so would to be sure be
violation of the Rules, but it still can't happen unless Blob sends a
On 27/06/2013 8:55 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Of course, this raises the age old question of whether, if e does an
illegal thing, whether it actually fails (since we haven't differentiated
IMPOSSIBLE from ILLEGAL here at all...)
Okay, for the sake of argument: then that also applies to all
omd's Agora Infinity is the only proposal so far for the next round.
And unless that proposal passes, next round is the last one. Even if it
does pass, next round is the last round at this ridiculous speed. The
rounds after that go to ludicruous speed...
(What's the matter Colonel Sanders?
On 27/06/2013 9:45 AM, omd wrote:
The cycle length is initially 24 hours. On 30 June 2013, 00:00:00
+1200, and thereafter once the cycle length has passed since the last
reduction, the cycle length is reduced to half of its previous value.
On 31 June 2013, 00:00:00 +1200, the game ends.
Maybe
Aand we return to the old Platonic vs Pragmatic debate.
Blob (staying low)
On 28/06/2013, at 11:06 AM, Fool wrote:
On 27/06/2013 8:55 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Of course, this raises the age old question of whether, if e does an
illegal thing, whether it actually fails (since we haven't
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
Argh **
Yes, Chuck did privately vote against 344. And no, Walker did vote against,
he changed his public for to a private against about 9 hours later.
So it's actually 4:4, fail, we're back to rule 343. Yally did not
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013, Fool wrote:
On 27/06/2013 8:55 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Of course, this raises the age old question of whether, if e does an
illegal thing, whether it actually fails (since we haven't differentiated
IMPOSSIBLE from ILLEGAL here at all...)
Okay, for the sake of
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013, Malcolm Ryan wrote:
Aand we return to the old Platonic vs Pragmatic debate.
that has plagued Agora for a looong time...
Oh, and remind me next year to come up with a Drinking Game for
observers.
1. Drink if platonic
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013, Malcolm Ryan wrote:
Aand we return to the old Platonic vs Pragmatic debate.
that has plagued Agora for a looong time...
On 27/06/2013 9:38 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
I call for judgement on the statement a player can change eir
vote.
My 8-sided virtual die comes up omd
You have 24 hours.
-Dan
Nothing in the rules support the notion that this is possible, or
allow for removing of votes. Instead, the rules
On 27/06/2013 9:38 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
I call for judgement on the statement a player can change eir vote.
Nothing in the rules support the notion that this is possible, or
allow for removing of votes. Instead, the rules claim each player gets
a single vote. Walker's initial vote should
Nothing in the Rules, perhaps, except for the provision in R217 which
states that game custom is one of two standards to be applied before others
where the rules are unclear.
On 28 June 2013 11:38, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Fool
Rule 113, while implying that forfeiture usually is a choice, does not
appear to indicate that a person may not be forced to do it. The only
thing it seems to imply is that you cannot prevent a person from doing
it. Therefore, if a person is forced to forfeit, they have forfeited,
and I judge this
1. This is the ruleset of a nomic called Ambassador Abuse
2. There are two languages used by Ambassador Abuse: Ambabusese and English.
3. All communications to Ambassador Abuse are in Ambabusese, but the rules
themselves are in English,
4. All communications on Agora's public fora are considered
Yes, this is definitely a problem with the return to the original rules idea.
The original rules had a lot of bugs. If this just means revisiting those bugs
every year, I'm not keen.
Blob
On 28/06/2013, at 11:47 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 28
A communication to Ambassador Abuse: I change rule 6 to read If rule 5
does not specify the meaning of a communication that is in Ambabusese, then
the meaning of the Ambabusese is equivalent to the English meaning of ROT13
applied to the communication, as long as that does not mean a denial or
It would be an interesting project to design a terse and elegant, non-buggy
set of initial Rules suitable playing blitz nomic on a mailing list.
On 28 June 2013 13:37, Malcolm Ryan malco...@cse.unsw.edu.au wrote:
Yes, this is definitely a problem with the return to the original rules
idea. The
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Steven Gardner
steven.gard...@monash.edu wrote:
It would be an interesting project to design a terse and elegant, non-buggy
set of initial Rules suitable playing blitz nomic on a mailing list.
Or we could just squash all the bugs and continue where we left off
On 28 June 2013 14:18, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Steven Gardner
steven.gard...@monash.edu wrote:
It would be an interesting project to design a terse and elegant,
non-buggy
set of initial Rules suitable playing blitz nomic on a mailing
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013, Steven Gardner wrote:
What I'd be looking for is a ruleset which fixes bugs likes changing rule
numbers, defines simultaneity, incorporates
some lessons about pragmatism in a minimally committal way and generally
leaves the rest open for players to explore
politics
I just came across my old Thesis, which I'd completely forgotten about,
The concept of a 'rule change' in Peter Suber's Initial Set. Like
everyone else, we seem to have assumed that the claim labelled (*) in the
Thesis is false. It's be interesting to design an initial set which clears
up the
64 matches
Mail list logo
