A few comments inline.
Gaelan
> On Oct 20, 2019, at 6:35 PM, Nch wrote:
>
> Since we're spitballing ideas anyway right now...
>
> I intend to, after some time for review, submit the following proposal,
> "Roulette Gaming", with AI=1:
>
> Enact a power-0.6 rule titled "Roulette Gaming" with
Ooh, how do we define local time? Some possibilities I see:
1) A time zone switch, with some reasonable timeout for switching it. Could be
a little annoying if someone’s going to a substantially different time zone for
a few days.
2) The time zone where the player currently physically is—I
On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 6:45 PM Nch wrote:
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Sunday, October 20, 2019 8:43 PM, Nch wrote:
>
> > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > On Sunday, October 20, 2019 5:01 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu wrote:
> >
> > > Herald's Weekly report
> > > Date of Last
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, October 20, 2019 5:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Herald's Weekly report
>
> Date of Last Report: 06 Oct 2019
> Date of This Report: 20 Oct 2019
>
> Karma Entity
>
> +6 Aris <= SHOGUN
> +5 G.
>
> - ABOVE +4 STAND THE SAMURAI
>
> +3 Trigon
> +3 twg
>
On 10/20/19 9:18 PM, Nch wrote:
On its face I don't think this or the other two work. However I think it might
be possible to do this...
I submit the following proposal, "Persistent", AI=3 {
When this rule is amended, also amend it by appending this sentence to the end
of the rule.
}
On 10/20/19 8:47 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
One week after this sentence is modified in any way, this rule
is amended by inserting this sentence as the first paragraph of
this rule.
Is this clear enough on the Instrument performing the amending?
--
Jason Cobb
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, October 20, 2019 7:47 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I submit the following proposal, "trick candles", AI=1:
>
> --
>
> Create a Rule entitled "Blink" with the following text:
> One week
On 10/20/2019 3:20 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
Hot Potato has huge timezone issues. I can't see any reason not to pass
the potato at just before UTC midnight every day, holding onto it until
then, which gives the advantage to players with fast email connections
to the Agoran
On 10/20/19 6:20 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
(is there
anything preventing you immediately rejoining? did you mean to exile
player who try and fail?), but that's fixable.
Yep, that's what it was. I'll fix that if it ever gets proposed.
--
Jason Cobb
On 10/20/2019 3:12 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> On Sunday, October 20, 2019 10:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Votes so far from: Falsifian, Jason Cobb.
>
> I voted [Fruits of Persistence and Patience, Hot Potato, Clairvoyant
> Roshambo, The
> Watch]. You even replied to it. :P
You know, I
FWIW, the intention of my proposal was to handle broken rules better, not to
make this a legitimate method of tracking switches. Apologies if you already
understood that.
Gaelan
> On Oct 20, 2019, at 2:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> A more general comment on both this and Murphy's proposal
On Sunday, October 20, 2019 10:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Votes so far from: Falsifian, Jason Cobb.
I voted [Fruits of Persistence and Patience, Hot Potato, Clairvoyant Roshambo,
The
Watch]. You even replied to it. :P
-twg
On Sunday, October 20, 2019 9:15 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
> I object. Can't you CFJ this, like people normally do with ambiguous
> registrations, rather than simply trying to disregard the issue
> entirely?
Oh, I wasn't even thinking of your "proposal" as a potentially ambiguous
On Sun., Oct. 20, 2019, 05:08 Timon Walshe-Grey, wrote:
> On Sunday, October 20, 2019 7:39 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey
> wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 20, 2019 6:09 AM, Aris Merchant
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > A draft follows. I'm aware my ordering is... unconventional. It's
A more general comment on both this and Murphy's proposal - maybe, if we're
in the mood to embark on a handful of minigames, we should create a new
office with the up-front understanding that the particular office should be
assigned tracking of the various minigames, so anyone holding the
On Sun, 2019-10-20 at 14:43 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> But if the rule is repealed, it's not part of the power structure anymore,
> either. R2449 states "When the Rules state that a person or persons win the
> game, those persons win the game". If the rule has been repealed, the rules
> just
On 10/20/2019 2:36 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
> On Sun, 2019-10-20 at 14:30 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Does this actually work? When the rule is repealed, it's gone, and
>> therefore can't cause a win. You could say it's a fencepost issue (e.g.
>> the
>> repeal and the win happen
On Sun, Oct 20, 2019, at 3:33 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On 10/20/2019 2:15 PM, Ada Worcester wrote:
> > I register.
> >
> > --
> > Ada "pikhq" Worcester, Agoran Spy
>
> Oh hey, welcome back! Unless you're spying again -quick check all the other
> Nomics! :) Do you want to be known as pikhq or
On Sun, 2019-10-20 at 14:30 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Does this actually work? When the rule is repealed, it's gone, and
> therefore can't cause a win. You could say it's a fencepost issue (e.g. the
> repeal and the win happen simultaneously) but that doesn't really work,
> because it's a
On 10/20/2019 2:15 PM, Ada Worcester wrote:
I register.
--
Ada "pikhq" Worcester, Agoran Spy
Oh hey, welcome back! Unless you're spying again -quick check all the other
Nomics! :) Do you want to be known as pikhq or Ada (or something else?)
-G.
On 10/20/2019 12:04 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
> Right now, I submit the following proposal, "Undo This Proposal", AI 1:
>
> Create a new Power-0.5 rule, "Repeal This Rule":
> {{{
> When this rule is repealed by a proposal, the author of that proposal
> wins the game.
>
> When
On 10/20/19 5:21 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
Create a power-1 rule titled “Switch Responsibility” with the following text: {
For each switch which would otherwise lack an officer to track it, and is not
defined as untracked, there exists an imposed office named “Tracker of [switch
name]” that is
On Sunday, October 20, 2019 7:04 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
> Right now, I submit the following proposal, "Undo This Proposal", AI 1:
>
> Create a new Power-0.5 rule, "Repeal This Rule":
> {{{
> When this rule is repealed by a proposal, the author of that proposal
> wins the game.
Unofficial correction to the below report: CuddleBeam and Walker were
zombies at the time it was published, so should have been listed in
the Zombie section.
On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 at 03:36, James Cook wrote:
>
>
>
On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 18:20, Edward Murphy wrote:
>
> Proposal: Yes, Prime Minister
> (AI = 2, co-author = Gaelan)
>
> Amend Rule 2193 (The Registrar) by removing this text:
Should be 2139.
--
- Falsifian
On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 12:14 PM Edward Murphy wrote:
> Proposal: The Fat Director
> (AI = 2, co-authors = Gaelan, G.)
>
> Amend Rule 2193 (The Registrar) by removing this text:
>
>The Registrar is also responsible for tracking any switches,
>defined in a rule, that would
On 10/20/19 3:15 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Sun, 2019-10-20 at 15:12 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote:
On 10/20/19 3:04 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
Right now, I submit the following proposal, "Undo This Proposal",
AI 1:
R2350 says that only players can create proposals, so I think
On Sun, 2019-10-20 at 15:12 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 10/20/19 3:04 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
> > Right now, I submit the following proposal, "Undo This Proposal",
> > AI 1:
>
> R2350 says that only players can create proposals, so I think this
> fails.
I was aware of this at the
On 10/20/19 2:46 PM, Edward Murphy wrote:
R2152 actually covers both of those, using CANNOT (etc.) for platonic
cases and MAY NOT (etc.) for pragmatic cases. So a rule taking the
platonic approach to its subject may or may not make that approach
explicit by depending on the relevant parts of
On 10/20/19 3:04 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
Right now, I submit the following proposal, "Undo This Proposal", AI 1:
R2350 says that only players can create proposals, so I think this fails.
--
Jason Cobb
My 2 cents: I believe the answer to this is TRUE.
I think game custom provides that the Ruleset is the set-of-all-rules. I am not
sure what the alternative definition could be. There’s no reason for the
Ruleset to be a subset-of-all-rules, and we wouldn’t have any principled way to
discern
On 10/20/19 11:23 AM, Nch wrote:
I submit the following proposal:
Proposal: Popularity* Contest
Co-Author: Jason Cobb
AI: 0.5
Oh, and I just realized that all of the switches defined in this rule
are not specified as being tracked or untracked, and thus are tracked by
the Registrar.
--
Forwarded Message
Subject: Re: BUS: Ruleset Thesis
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 10:53:36 -0700
From: Edward Murphy
To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
Jason Cobb wrote:
2.6.1 Rule 2152
Rule 2152 ("Mother, May I?") is the rule that defines that pertain to
entities attempting
G. wrote:
On 10/20/2019 11:20 AM, Edward Murphy wrote:
> Proposal: Yes, Prime Minister
> (AI = 2, co-author = Gaelan)
>
> Amend Rule 2193 (The Registrar) by removing this text:
>
> The Registrar is also responsible for tracking any switches,
> defined in a rule, that would
> On Oct 20, 2019, at 9:11 AM, Nch wrote:
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>>> On Sunday, October 20, 2019 10:56 AM, Jason Cobb
>>> wrote:
>> Sorry, I know this isn't a proto anymore, but I think this may still be
>> broken.
>>> On 10/20/19 11:23 AM, Nch wrote:
>>> I submit the
On Sun, 2019-10-20 at 11:29 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I think this thesis is at least Masters level. I think a really good
> comparison would be to look at ais523's Master and PhD theses to see
> where this falls in between those. If the provided links/search
> don't have those, I'll dig for
On 10/20/2019 11:20 AM, Edward Murphy wrote:
> Proposal: Yes, Prime Minister
> (AI = 2, co-author = Gaelan)
>
> Amend Rule 2193 (The Registrar) by removing this text:
>
>The Registrar is also responsible for tracking any switches,
>defined in a rule, that would otherwise lack an
On 10/20/2019 12:56 AM, James Cook wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 at 22:16, Reuben Staley
> wrote:
>>> A1. Appendix 1: Graphs > A2. Appendix 2: Other attachments
>>> A.3 Appendix 3: Code
>>
>> I really appreciate these appendices and submit that the Agoran public
>> take them into account while
Jason Cobb wrote:
2.6.1 Rule 2152
Rule 2152 ("Mother, May I?") is the rule that defines that pertain to
entities attempting to do things, and (generally people) being punished
for or required to do something. Thus, rules that depend on R2152 could
be considered to be more "pragmatic",
twg wrote:
On Saturday, October 12, 2019 10:17 PM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
Are there any objections (especially from the H. Referee) to making that rule a
reality? I’m aware that it could create a minor mess, but would just be so much
fun, and the penalty for violating it is quite minor.
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, October 20, 2019 10:56 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> Sorry, I know this isn't a proto anymore, but I think this may still be
> broken.
>
> On 10/20/19 11:23 AM, Nch wrote:
>
> > I submit the following proposal:
> > Proposal: Popularity* Contest
> >
Sorry, I know this isn't a proto anymore, but I think this may still be
broken.
On 10/20/19 11:23 AM, Nch wrote:
I submit the following proposal:
Proposal: Popularity* Contest
Co-Author: Jason Cobb
AI: 0.5
Create a power=0.5 rule titled “Popularity* Contest” with the following text {
On Friday, October 18, 2019 4:24 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> I like the idea (seems to be almost the inverse of my submission to the
> subgame constest :P). A few possible issues below.
>
> On 10/18/19 5:05 PM, Nch wrote:
>
> > When a player registers for the first time since this proposal was
"Person Switch" is used in multiple rules, but not explicitly defined. This
should probably be fixed, but it also sets a precedent for a common definition
where X Switch is a switch all Xes have if X isn't a pre-defined type of
switch. Does that mean in my Popularity* Contest, I can define a
On 10/20/19 3:56 AM, James Cook wrote:
To get a sense of what sort of thesis merits each kind of degree, is
there any practical way to put together an archive of past theses? The
"Blob's Thesis Archive" link on agoranomic.org has been a broken link
since the first time I tried it.
The Herald's
On 10/20/19 3:51 AM, James Cook wrote:
Thanks for putting this together! Minor comments below.
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 at 20:19, Jason Cobb wrote:
There is a 3-way tie for having the most direct dependencies: Rule 2532
("Zombies"), Rule 2438 ("Ribbons") and Rule 2581 ("Official Patent
Titles").
On 10/20/19 1:36 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Currently, this sort of penalty is allowed for the Cold Hand of
Justice, but not for Summary Judgement. That seems like an error to
me. I'd be tempted to repeal the mandate entirely
Yeah, that's my fault. I changed "person who plays the game" to
On Sunday, October 20, 2019 7:39 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> On Sunday, October 20, 2019 6:09 AM, Aris Merchant
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > A draft follows. I'm aware my ordering is... unconventional. It's for
> > the befuddlement of future generations, and is all part of
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 at 22:16, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > A1. Appendix 1: Graphs > A2. Appendix 2: Other attachments
> > A.3 Appendix 3: Code
>
> I really appreciate these appendices and submit that the Agoran public
> take them into account while considering which degree to give the H.
> Jason
Thanks for putting this together! Minor comments below.
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 at 20:19, Jason Cobb wrote:
> There is a 3-way tie for having the most direct dependencies: Rule 2532
> ("Zombies"), Rule 2438 ("Ribbons") and Rule 2581 ("Official Patent
> Titles"). R2483 is a great example of pulling
On Sunday, October 20, 2019 6:09 AM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
A draft follows. I'm aware my ordering is... unconventional. It's for
the befuddlement of future generations, and is all part of the fun.
-Aris
Jason Cobb is a co-author to 8256 as well. I don't see any other errors.
-twg
On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 05:37, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> Currently, this sort of penalty is allowed for the Cold Hand of
> Justice, but not for Summary Judgement. That seems like an error to
> me. I'd be tempted to repeal the mandate entirely, but a) allowing
> non-players to join contracts is
On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 at 03:30, James Cook wrote:
> 08-Oct-19 14:59 Gaelan flips Gaelan's master switch to Gaelan.
Correction: the time on this event should be 15:02, when Gaelan sent
"TTttPF". Keeping this on the discussion list to make sure it doesn't
count as a CoE since it doesn't seem worth
A draft follows. I'm aware my ordering is... unconventional. It's for
the befuddlement of future generations, and is all part of the fun.
-Aris
--
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
pool. For this
54 matches
Mail list logo
