On Sunday 20 April 2008 11:22:07 comex wrote:
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Iammars [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nowhere in the rules does it mention that parties to a contract have to be
persons.
Rule 1742/14 (Power=1.5)
Contracts
Contracts are binding agreements governed by the
On Friday 18 April 2008 5:12:21 Ben Caplan wrote:
I submit the following proposal, entitled Nitpicking Contract
Changes, at AI=1.5 and II=0:
On Saturday 19 April 2008 7:53:03 Zefram wrote:
5502 O0 1.5 Pavitra Nitpicking Contract
Is that a database bug or a human error? If a database
On Wednesday 16 April 2008 10:57:57 Kerim Aydin wrote:
I don't think
more complete legislation is a problem in theory, but it has a lot of ways it
can go wrong in implementation (Nomic World had several examples which came
down to too much power for the Wizards).
It seems to me that this
On Tuesday 15 April 2008 3:19:47 Geoffrey Spear wrote:
Bah. Unless the MMO engines release their source and democratically
apply patches submitted by Players, we should shun them entirely.
Now excuse me while I try to figure out how I could get myself enough
free time to implement a 3D
On Tuesday 15 April 2008 5:14:56 Ian Kelly wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Ben Caplan wrote:
I strongly suspect that a Second Life embassy would fall to the same
fate as Nomic Hall. Precisely because SL is so powerfully scriptable,
there is essentially no central government (so
On Monday 14 April 2008 9:40:59 Roger Hicks wrote:
Since ownership of crops is restricted to farmers, and the Bank of
Agora is not a farmer (not yet anyway) then what is the current state
of these crops? Did your transfer fail? or were the crops destroyed
when you transferred them?
I believe
On Monday 14 April 2008 12:33:24 Ian Kelly wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe the Bank of Agora joined the AAA in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED].
All you said there was I make those changes, with no contextual
quoting that actually included
On Saturday 12 April 2008 9:57 Ian Kelly wrote:
Doubtful. The rules do not grant a contract the power to make
arbitrary changes to asset holdings, whether the contract happens to
be the backing document for that class of assets or not. I hadn't
noticed the Bank of Agora was claiming to do
On Friday 11 April 2008 5:00 ihope wrote:
The Bank needs to be a party to the Agoran Agricultural Association
before it can hold Crops and Water Rights Vouchers; since these are
almost the only liquid currency we have, this is pretty important. If
you agree to this, make sure you have it join.
On Wednesday 09 April 2008 5:11 Benjamin Schultz wrote:
Here's a better (?) version:
Append to the paragraph: The Mad Scientist CAN act on behalf of the
Monster to take any action that the Monster may take, and SHALL act
on behalf of the monster to ensure that the Monster fulfills all
On Wednesday 09 April 2008 8:52 ihope wrote:
If you see any errors, please tell me. Keeping all Agoran
Twister-related stuff to this thread would be nice.
Agoran Twister and the AAA seem to be generating a lot of a-b traffic.
Might it be a good idea to have a separate forum for contract-defined
On Wednesday 09 April 2008 9:14 Iammars wrote:
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 10:06 PM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Actually, I've felt for some time now that the list organization could
use some revision; for example, miscellaneous CotC actions (everything
except the Docket) should
On Wednesday 09 April 2008 10:14 Iammars wrote:
It could be justified by saying that anything that is a report on the
gamestate should go to a-o, whereas anything that changes the gamestate or
disputes a report of the gamestate should go to a-b.
The distinction I personally prefer is that a-o
On Monday 07 April 2008 11:14 Ed Murphy wrote:
Unless I'm missing something, that version could still benefit from a
direct definition of the reports/duties of non-officer recordkeepors.
I agree that that would probably be a good idea, but it's
fundamentally an issue with R2166, and belongs in
On Tuesday 08 April 2008 8:02 Ian Kelly wrote:
Pavitra's votes were cast after the end of the voting period and are
therefore invalid.
Oops.
By the way, this probably should have been sent to a-o.
On Tuesday 08 April 2008 11:05 Ian Kelly wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 10:08 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A judicial panel CAN send messages by means of any of its
members sending a message
5485 D1 2rootGeneralize official duties
FOR
5486 O1 1.5 Goethe keeping informed
AGAINSTx4, needs a frequency limit to prevent spam.
5487 O1 1 Murphy Spelling it out
FORx4
5488 D2 2 Ivan Hope none
FOR
5489 D0 2 Murphy VLOD decay
AGAINST
5490
AI=2, II depends on how hard this thing turns out to be to get right
{{
Amend Rule 2162 (Switches) as follows:
In the first paragraph, replace 'the rules define' with 'an instrument or
contract (hereafter its backing document) defines', and 'specify'
with 'specifies'.
In paragraph b), replace
On Monday 07 April 2008 4:57 Ben Caplan wrote:
AI=2, II depends on how hard this thing turns out to be to get right
On second thought, it might be easier just to make switches fixed assets.
{{
Amend rule 2162 (Switches) to read:
A type of switch is a class of fixed assets. An instance
=A0 =A0 =A0
Oh, eww. What causes that?
On Monday 07 April 2008 5:41 Ian Kelly wrote:
How is the random determination made? It would be much cleaner to
continue requiring a default value, I think.
I dunno. Random determinations are already required by rules 2019 and 2192
(and 1742, via AAA), and the usual method seems to be that
On Monday 07 April 2008 8:02 Ed Murphy wrote:
root wrote:
There must be some way of making this cleaner.
By generalizing weekly duties beyond officers?
Actually, the third paragraph of R2166 implies that this is already done.
At any rate, it's much more likely I'll go with the asset
On Saturday 01 March 2008 1:18 Ed Murphy wrote:
Original Message
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dice server)
Subject: Prerogative assignments for March 2008
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 12:16:21 -0700
Dice
On Sunday 02 March 2008 12:11 Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 1:01 AM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I support Murphy's call for appeal of CFJ 1903. In spite of reading this
in the caller's arguments, I looked at the ruleset that contained R591/23,
not the recently passed
On Sunday 02 March 2008 12:43 Ian Kelly wrote:
And FWIW, I think that assigning an unappealable judgement while
making no attempt whatsoever to actually address the serious question
at hand is simply deplorable.
If it really comes down to it, we could always initiate a new CFJ, identical
to
On Sunday 02 March 2008 12:14 Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I assign Default Officeholder to Levi.
Can non-Players have prerogatives?
Oh, that's an interesting bug.
Yes. Only a Minister Without Portfolio can gain a Prerogative, but
On Sunday 02 March 2008 1:26 Charles Reiss wrote:
The prior judge was improperly relied on a newer version of the rule
that included a bugfix for precisely this reason.
The judgement is still appropriate, however, because there is not a
general equivalence of yes/no questions and statements
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CFJ 1894's equivalence in my mind only applies for the purposes of
determining the subject and validity of a call for judgement. I think
the text must be evaluated independently of its use or non-use in
calls for
On Thursday 28 February 2008 4:26 Ed Murphy wrote:
Proposal: Split and Secure Ratification
(AI = 3, please)
It seems that official documents would no longer be self-ratifying under this
proposal. Is this deliberate, and if so, why is it a good idea? (If a
document can be secretly published ala
On Thursday 28 February 2008 5:04 Ian Kelly wrote:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Ben Caplan wrote:
It seems that official documents would no longer be self-ratifying under
this proposal.
They're not currently self-ratifying either, apart from the lists of
assets in the reports
On Tuesday 26 February 2008 23:10 Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The prior judge has since gone on hold. I suggest that REASSIGN would
be better in this case.
Good point.
I move to REASSIGN with the below quoted arguments:
On Monday 25 February 2008 17:34 comex wrote:
[T]he judgement
On Monday 25 February 2008 17:34 comex wrote:
[T]he judgement was based on R2019 saying
by announcement, but in fact that phrase was only added after the
CFJ was called.
I move to REMAND with these arguments.
watcher
On Sunday 24 February 2008 3:35 Ed Murphy wrote:
Narrowly rejected: Pavitra(5448)
This line is, I think, misleading; as the table correctly shows, I have
neither Ab nor A note gains pending.
watcher
Or rather I should ask, how is the meaning ambiguous in a way that did
not apply equally in the case considered in CFJ 1894?
Proposal 5425 was passed between CFJs 1894 and 1903.
This was in fact the original point of this case, and I'm somewhat
surprised that the rather long discussion here
Also, what happens if one of the specified players has the nerve to
deregister before the proposal takes effect and throws off the
balance?
Erm, yes. I also want to allow some loose/flexible set specification
(e.g. all players with quality X get a P'ship of 1.5 where quality
X
On Thursday 21 February 2008 14:11 Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I nominate Goethe, OscarMeyr, Pavitra, and Wooble for IADoP.
Hmm...
What happened with pikhq's nominations on (16 or 19) January? I've
spent the last half-hour trying to sort it out. Was it just left
ambiguous?
On Thursday 21 February 2008 10:57 Geoffrey Spear wrote:
When the elections in question were resolved, it was noted that the
first attempt to resolve the votes on those proposals has
self-ratified so in every case the earlier date was correct.
Ok.
I think I've actually got an up-to-date IADoP
If the agent of Registrar (through Cantus Cygneus) doesn't
satisfy, neither would the agent of a deputy.
Nice point. Its validity comes down to the question of how much
BobTHJness is entailed in the position that I was deputising for.
As noted above, I think there was more
On Feb 18, 2008 6:40 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the matter of the appeal of CFJ 1903, I intend to cause the panel
to judge AFFIRM.
Given that the original judge supported the appeal, shouldn't you at
least write a concurring opinion?
Proposal 5445 (Democratic, AI=3, Interest=1) by Goethe, Murphy
Satisfaction v3
Upon finally reading through this carefully, I wish I'd paid more attention to
its proto thread -- sorry Goethe. I'm not sure whether any of these issues
justify voting AGAINST, so I'll just go to a-d for a while.
On Feb 12, 2008 12:56 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 12, 2008 12:54 PM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Enact a new rule with power 1, entitled Nomic Definitions, with text as
follows:
Zefram is the coauthor of this proposal.
Check the placement of that line g
Gah
I sense that it's probably close to done, so here's a clean draft.
I'm breaking province voting rights off into separate proposals according to
power.
What Are We? AI=1, II=2
{{
Enact a new rule with power 1, entitled Nomic Definitions, with text as
follows:
Zefram is the coauthor of
On Saturday 09 February 2008 7:23 I wrote:
On Friday 08 February 2008 12:57 Zefram wrote:
In that case I suggest that you clarify by expressing it as protectorate
that is also a player. However, I don't think the definition is useful.
I like the notion; it provides an interesting paradigm
On Friday 08 February 2008 12:57 Zefram wrote:
Be careful about the word registered. We've seen a recent case
claiming that it can only refer to playerhood.
That was in fact what I meant.
In that case I suggest that you clarify by expressing it as protectorate
that is also a player.
A province is a registered protectorate.
Be careful about the word registered. We've seen a recent case claiming
that it can only refer to playerhood.
That was in fact what I meant. If a registered partnership's backing document
allows self-amendment, it qualifies as a nomic and is
On Wednesday 06 February 2008 9:26 Kerim Aydin wrote:
I proposed to AFFIRM with an error rating of 10 and the following
concurring opinion: It's possible that the *Government* or *body of
law* of Canada is a nomic, but Canada could mean the geographic
area, the peoples, etc. It was not
How is panel qualification determined?
Rule 911, third paragraph.
Silly me -- I was looking at 1868, 1871, and 2157, which would be the logical
places for this to be. Even after knowing where to look, I had to weave my
way around needlessly in order to figure out why the panel wasn't poorly
On Thursday 07 February 2008 5:02 Zefram wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Actually, only official reports can be ratified. Is the Ruleset
an official report? All other reports are officially called reports.
The ruleset is not itself a report, but the FLR and SLR are reports
(which report on the
On Thursday 07 February 2008 4:54 comex wrote:
On Feb 7, 2008 5:52 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No need. Once you give up power, you'll be vulnerable to criminal
charges.
Too bad ALREADY TRIED isn't exclusive.
You could fix that.
On Thursday 07 February 2008 1:33 you wrote:
On Wednesday 06 February 2008 9:26 Kerim Aydin wrote:
I proposed to AFFIRM with an error rating of 10 and the following
concurring opinion: It's possible that the *Government* or *body of
law* of Canada is a nomic, but Canada could mean the
Clearly, if I keep waiting for comex to cool down, I'm never going to
be able to do anything.
Embassy is the wrong word here. What should it be called?
Proto: What Are We?
AI=1, II=2
{{
Enact a new rule at power 1, entitled Foreign National Sovereignty, with the
following text:
A nomic is
On Wednesday 06 February 2008 5:37 Zefram wrote:
Ben Caplan wrote:
Do I hereby initiate an inquiry CFJ on this sentence?
No, you don't. The question-statement equivalence applies only for
the purposes of the subject of an inquiry case, not for acting by
announcement. Such is my
On Wednesday 06 February 2008 6:04 Ian Kelly wrote:
On Feb 6, 2008 4:53 PM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's UNDECIDABLE whether the first CFJ exists.
No it isn't. The first CFJ either exists or it doesn't, depending on
how the judge interprets Rule 591.
A tautology is still
Hear ye, hear ye! Agorans, gather all around, for this week is a
special week! In accordance with Rule 1750, I encourage you all to
break out your rulesets, for this week is Read the Ruleset Week!
May there be joy, dancing, and humble worship to our Ruleset, the most
high Law of the Land!
Many CFJs boil down to interpretation of the ruleset. If UNDECIDABLE
were appropriate for contingencies, then such cases should nearly
always be judged so. What we do in practice is that the judge picks
the interpretation e deems best and follows it to its logical
conclusion of either TRUE
On Feb 6, 2008 8:37 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Appeal 1879a
Assigned to root (panelist):(as of this message)
Assigned to Goethe (panelist): (as of this message)
Assigned to Pavitra (panelist):
On Sunday 03 February 2008 12:54 Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
Oh wait -- would amendment by less than unanimity create a R101(v)
conflict?
Nope! Only if the voting process itself were patently unfair. When you
agree, in joining the contract, to be bound
The problem is that the Vote Market prevents me from leaving under certain
circumstances.
Suppose I have 49 VP, and someone proposes to add an article reading At
the beginning of each week, if watcher is a party and has at least as many
VP as there are parties to this contract, then one
and a definite attempt to participate (by setting eir posture to sitting)
Technically, leaning (though it doesn't change the balance of the argument).
The use of 'a' obviously makes it less plausible but can be
excused as an inconsequential typo.
R754(1): as long as the difference does not
Because interpretation (2) and (3) are plausible (even if less likely
intended
than interpretation (1)), we must interpret the message as causing Pavitra to
become a player per R754, which requires the rules' definitions to prevail by
default.
This doesn't follow. It's most sensible to
1. This contract is non-binding, and so it does not impose any
contractual obligations whatsoever.
v. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by an
agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has not
had the reasonable opportunity to review.
We were never supposed to be bound by this
contract; it is designed to be fully effective without it.
Then it can't be a contract.
Oh, interesting. I believe you're right:
Rule 1742/12 (Power=1.5)
Contracts
Any group of two or more persons may make an agreement among
On Saturday 02 February 2008 10:33 Josiah Worcester wrote:
I dunno; maybe in this case, the ordinary-language definition
supplements the rule's definition, since the rule's definition *does*
seem to be merely attempting to formalise the ordinary-language
definition. . .
No. R754(3)-(4)
On Sunday 03 February 2008 12:00 Roger Hicks wrote:
Ostracism
{
Create a new rule titled Ostracism with the text:
{{
As soon as possible after the beginning of each month the IADoP SHALL
initiate an Agoran Decision to ostracize. In this decision the valid
options are the players, quorum is
On Wednesday 30 January 2008 4:19 Kerim Aydin wrote:
(As someone admonished in a recent case, why not just ask em?)
I've been deliberately withholding details, in order to maximize ambiguity,
but it occurs to me that the particular circumstances might actually create a
more interesting case. How
R2144 only applies to partnerships with identical bases. I'm also
concerned about overlapping non-identical bases.
Aha, so e.g. 3 players could create and register 4 partnerships
(AB, AC, BC, ABC), and it gets worse as the number of conspirators
increases. Would it suffice to prevent a
Murphy wrote:
A nomic is a system of rules that includes formal provisions for
general-purpose self-amendment.
I'm not sure that the rules themselves constitute the nomic. Is Agora
different from the Agora ruleset? Is either the SLR or the FLR in closer
identity than the other
no Agoran rule, ruling, or custom allows for [the mailing lists] to be
messed with from within the game. Yet Agora exists and is nomic, dependent
on them, yet not containing them within its self-complete nomic nature.
What do you call Rule 478?
R478 governs how players interact with the
On Monday 28 January 2008 6:48 Jeremy Koo wrote:
So I get how nomics work, and I kind of see how the rules here are set up,
but then I look in the thread archives and I become utterly lost. Folks
with multiple votes, the difference between democratic and ordinary
proposals, the senate, it's
On Monday 28 January 2008 3:18 Ed Murphy wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Domestic Trade
(AI = 2, please)
Amend Rule 2166 (Assets) by appending this text to the paragraph
beginning An asset generally CAN be destroyed:
(...)
Create a rule titled Cimons with this text:
(...)
It seems to me that most
On Monday 28 January 2008 10:31 Ed Murphy wrote:
Pavitra wrote:
Also, how can a currency's conversion limit be set to a nonzero value?
By its backing document? By the Accountor with Agoran Consent? And to
what value does it default?
It defaults to not having any, hence the if any clause.
On Monday 28 January 2008 11:07 Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
In particular, governments whose
constitutions provide for constitutional amendment are nomics.
Does that put England Right Out? For that matter
On Friday 25 January 2008 2:06 Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I think a system where unofficial custom can override something
explicitly defined in the Rules is almost completely unworkable, not
to mention a huge burden to new players. Who defines what exactly is
custom? If I start posting messages
If CFJ1879 returns TRUE, I suggest contacting the Hon. Minister of
Foreign Affairs Maxime Bernier at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
..
Pavitra
Proto-proposal: define notwithstanding.
AI=2
{{{
Amend rule 1023 by creating paragraph (d) as follows:
A phrase of the form X notwithstanding, where X unambiguously
identifies zero or more rules or sets of rules, means that the rule in
which the phrase appears asserts of itself that it
I register as a player of Agora with the nickname Pavitra and the
email address [EMAIL PROTECTED]
201 - 276 of 276 matches
Mail list logo
