On Thu, 21 Feb 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 12:57 AM Gaelan Steele wrote:
The proposed rule is a prohibition on a certain type of change.
Because 106 says “except as prohibited by other rules”, it defers to
this rule.
Deference clauses only work between rules of the same
That particular item of the Rule was just amended to change that text,
although it still needs a default.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
Amend Rule 2591, "Spaceships", by replacing the following:
* Armour (an integer switch limited to values from 0 to 10
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, James Cook wrote:
5. Rule 2465 says: "Upon doing so, the specified players win the game."
When we talk about "Doing X" for any X, we almost always take X to refer
to the Action ("Declaring apathy") and not the method (without
objection). R2125 supports this in that it
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, Cuddle Beam wrote:
Going to use Gluttony instead of Cincinnatus because it's just easier to
remember and type off the top of my head and it's more on the theme of
cardinal sins and having amassed all that power feels obese. There's also
the issue that once you have that kind
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, Cuddle Beam wrote:
Add to the Ribbon Ownership of each player a {Black Relic} if immediately
prior to this proposal enacting, they had a {Black Ribbon}.
Two issues I see:
(1) This would make all non-players lose their Black Ribbons. I don't
have one but some do.
(2) G
On Fri, 2019-02-22 at 10:45 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 10:22 AM D. Margaux
> wrote:
> > > On Feb 22, 2019, at 12:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > Every so often, someone decides "we're not really playing Agora
> > > anymore" because (in their perception) we improperly pape
> That doesn’t mean pure logic is unimportant; but it does mean that logic
“works” only to the extent it can persuade the relevant legal actors.
I agree with that entirely. Perspectivism and shit.
It's why we have CFJs and stuff, people disagree all the time.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 7:50 PM D. M
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 10:22 AM D. Margaux wrote:
> > On Feb 22, 2019, at 12:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Every so often, someone decides "we're not really playing Agora
> > anymore" because (in their perception) we improperly papered over some
> > platonic truth that made everything freeze.
>
> On Feb 22, 2019, at 1:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Given that, unlike countries, Agora is an
> entirely voluntary organization, my personal worry about Agora is not
> a "full ossification that almost everyone agrees happened" nor "1 or 2
> people saying we were playing wrong" but a situatio
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 7:06 AM Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > I feel like my understanding is a bit lacking, though. R2125 + R2152
> > tell us that attempting to raise a banner by a method outside the
> > rules is "unsuccessful". But it feels a bit similar to the rules
> > claiming that I don't exist, or
> On Feb 22, 2019, at 12:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Every so often, someone decides "we're not really playing Agora
> anymore" because (in their perception) we improperly papered over some
> platonic truth that made everything freeze.
That point of view makes me think of the “sovereign cit
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 6:34 AM Cuddle Beam wrote:
> >> (It's instructive to note what happened to B Nomic; it was also rather
> >> long-running in terms of gameplay, but when the players noticed that it
> >> had been ossified for years, it just died altogether; there were never
> >> enough player
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 6:31 AM Cuddle Beam wrote:
> IMO the game has already been “ossified” for a while (or
> miscalculated/unacknowledged by the consensus so far) because I’m convinced
> that all actions are regulated.
Every so often, someone decides "we're not really playing Agora
anymore" be
The rules don’t have to be consistent with reality. Or itself lol. Because
we can write pretty much anything to Agora’s ruletext.
As fun as it would be to try to nuke Agora with the Principle of Explosion,
I doubt it would actually work. We even have paradoxes in the game that
somehow don’t oblite
the border of what regulated actions are, are its limit*
On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 15:31, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> IMO the game has already been “ossified” for a while (or
> miscalculated/unacknowledged by the consensus so far) because I’m convinced
> that all actions are regulated.
>
> (by ad absurdia
IMO the game has already been “ossified” for a while (or
miscalculated/unacknowledged by the consensus so far) because I’m convinced
that all actions are regulated.
(by ad absurdiam:
Regulated actions are actions that are limited by the rules.
Unregulated actions are all actions that aren’t regu
On Fri, 2019-02-22 at 10:24 +, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> To be honest I never really understood the problem with ossification
> - surely if the game accidentally ends we can just start a "new one"
> with a similar ruleset and gamestate, minimally modified to deossify
> it?
Many players care a
To be honest I never really understood the problem with ossification - surely
if the game accidentally ends we can just start a "new one" with a similar
ruleset and gamestate, minimally modified to deossify it?
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 8:56 AM, Gaela
On Friday, February 22, 2019 4:08 AM, James Cook wrote:
> Adoption Index: 3.05
Don't think anyone's spotted this yet, but AI can only be a multiple of 0.1. If
I recall correctly, invalid values default to 1.0, which wouldn't work here.
(Or even worse, might work _only in part_.)
-twg
19 matches
Mail list logo
