On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 23:37 -0400, omd wrote:
I recuse LiberonScien from CFJ 3406 and assign Fool.
Eh??
Well I don't see a way to recuse myself or for the Arbitor to recuse me,
so I SHALL assign a judgement to the case within a week of assignment.
Though not before snarking about a process
On Thu, 2014-05-22 at 03:02 -0400, omd wrote:
Proposal: Soul or Power (AI=3)
Create a new Power-3 Rule titled Soul Proprietor:
Soul proprietor
Soul personal manager.
...
...
... Ah, sorry, I thought we had a clip.
We'll have to do it old school:
Shouldn't that be S-O-L-E?
On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 17:01 -0400, omd wrote:
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
Though not before snarking about a process that supposedly gives all
interested players reasonably equal opportunities to judge.
If you'd like a demonstration of how assigning
On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 17:09 -0400, omd wrote:
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
Soul personal manager.
From your post I can't tell whether you realized this, but it's a pun;
I am analogizing transferring the most important benefit of being a
person in a nomic
On Mon, 2014-05-12 at 17:59 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote:
x7642 Fool3 On breaking the game
Very well then, I call upon Agora to clarify the meaning of the last
sentence of R101.
The rest of R101 has changed considerably from what it was last year
(when I was accused of cheating by failing
On Mon, 2014-05-12 at 18:34 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote:
Proposal: You deserve it (AI=1.5)
{{{
Award to Fool the Patent Title Sociopath.
}}}
If elected, I promise more uncertainty, chaos, destruction, slaughter,
blood Blood BLOOD ...
erm.
I mean, I accept this nomination. Thank you Sean
On Mon, 2014-05-12 at 00:16 -0400, omd wrote:
[Apparently, 9 months ago or so when a proposal of mine passed that
removed self-ratification of the Registrar's report on the grounds
that it was covered by ratification of switches, nobody bothered to
inform me that there was no such thing
Oh,
On Wed, 2014-05-07 at 11:54 -0400, Henri Bouchard wrote:
Why are you on hold?
-Henri
A combination of sulking and slacking. If R101 is amended I'll stop
sulking. No promises about slacking though...
-Dan
On Thu, 2014-05-08 at 17:11 +0100, Charles Walker wrote:
On 6 May 2014 23:38, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
Are people interested in doing another blitz nomic around the time
of
Agora's birthday?
If so, does anyone have any ideas for how we would construct the
initial
On Thu, 2014-05-01 at 03:07 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote:
7642 Fool3 On breaking the game
I'd vote FOR this, but I'm still (unofficially) on hold.
-Dan
at the moment kind, for what it's worth. =P
~ Roujo
So ... you mean the kind where everyone confuses the new guy, as opposed
to the kind where the new guy confuses everyone?
;-)
--Fool, who is still relatively new, especially if you discount all the
months Agora's been sleeping.
On Thu, 2014-04-17 at 13:29 -0400, omd wrote:
Proposal: 'Cause I really really really really hate (AI=3)
Create a new Power-1 Rule, titled Cards:
[...]
When a Green Card is issued, the Referee gains two points, and the target
player is
ENCOURAGED to travel to the United States.
:-)
On 2014-03-23 1:14 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
(Another fun fact: The gamestate is also disputed; I called a CFJ almost
two weeks ago
6 months here... :-)
On 2014-03-23 1:26 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Fool wrote:
I intend, with Agoran consent, to replace the text of the Operations Manual
with the lyrics to _Beds are Burning_ by Midnight Oil.
(BTW failure to act in accordance with the operations manual is considered a
breach
On 2014-03-24 12:27 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
I intend, with Agoran consent, to replace the text of the Operations
Manual
with the lyrics to _Beds are Burning_ by Midnight Oil.
(BTW failure to act in accordance with the operations
On 2014-03-10 3:30 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
I haven't received any Agoran mail for over a week, and there should at
least have been officer reports by now.
Are the lists down, or has everyone fallen silent?
Ninja nomic. Shhh.
On 2014-03-10 2:44 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
For everything else, what I mostly care about is wins, mostly because
I enjoy the mental challenge of aiming for things that the rest of
Agora have decided are hard to reach (and may occasionally actively
try to prevent me reaching).
Bah. I've yet to
On 2014-02-21 11:59 PM, Charles Reiss wrote:
(a) whether my ruling was based on the meaning of win the game, or was based
on R2419 having insufficient.
The primary basis of my judgment is that, in the Agoran tradition, win the
game does not imply ending Agora. I considered whether R2419 had the
On 2014-02-13 8:15 PM, omd wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
(A) Does R2419, on its own, attempt to end the game?
this whole thing is silly: if Agora would have ended a few days ago,
then it ended a long time ago.
Likely did...
Even if Rule
On 2014-02-13 12:00 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
I think there's another subsidiary point here, which is how much power
does it take to end the game / series of games, anyway? It feels like
the answer should be 3, but I can't see an immediate reason why it's
On 2014-02-16 9:44 PM, omd wrote:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd guess that platonically, nothing of the sort happened. The players
pragmatically restarted the game.
It is absurd to interpret a clause of the form after a win, X
gamestate is reset in a way
On 2014-02-14 6:43 PM, Nicholas Evans wrote:
So unless Lilly is hooked up to a machine that can then rephrase and
recursively refer to Lilly's thoughts, these new restrictions should be
sufficient. Otherwise, I see no reason that a dog-machine combination
shouldn't be allowed to play, though I
On 2014-02-14 7:04 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
On Fri, 2014-02-14 at 15:59 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I transfer an 'i' to Lilly.
(This is actually non-controversial; operator ownership isn't limited to
players or persons).
Isn't it slightly controversial, in that there's currently no proof
On 2014-02-16 1:06 PM, Nicholas Evans wrote:
Sorry, the statement isn't past-perfctive but rather present-perfective.
My statement still holds as perfectives refer to some event as a whole,
not (necessarily) to any current state.
It might have been the past impossible never tense.
On 2014-02-08 4:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Sat, 8 Feb 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
On Sat, 2014-02-08 at 10:58 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Sat, 8 Feb 2014, omd wrote:
The same sentence that grants wins proceeds to state that a particular
aspect of the gamestate (scores) is reset. I'd say
On 2014-02-08 4:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Gratuitous argument for the game ending-case:
If the Judge finds that the game has ended, I request that the
judge further opine on exactly what ending the game means, if
only to bring us closure. A (non-exhaustive) list of possibilities:
1. The
On 2014-02-07 7:13 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
It's actually settled law (supported by factual evidence) that the
First Game ended, a new Speaker took the position, and Agora continued.
(it's documented in at least one CFJ; no database up right now so
don't remember which one). -G.
Yes, previous
On 2014-02-06 10:15 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
Arguments: There is nothing in the rules saying that Agora has ended.
Past precedent, custom, and the good of the game all point to Agora
not having ended.
How can you possibly invoke good of the game here?
-Dan, for Evil Queen Davy.
On 2014-02-06 5:03 PM, Geoff Schmidt wrote:
Arguments:
When we survey what are commonly called games, we find many games that
end upon a win, but also many games that do not end upon a win. An
example of the latter is America's National Football League.
Football definitely ends when one team
On 2014-02-05 10:41 PM, Geoff Schmidt wrote:
Also, even though I suck at it, I now think this is the finest game on
the Internet.
Second finest, surely.
-Dan
This sort of thing comes up in a few places, where a rule talks about
all X and then you run into a situation where there aren't any X.
There's a strictly logical reading of vacuous quantifiers, by which, for
example, I ate all the vegetables on my plate, because there were none
on my plate
On 2014-01-15 10:30 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014, omd wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
*7616 G. 2 O Mostly Simple Judging v2.3
*7617 G. 2 O A Complex Game 2
Wow. Significant rules changes and a
On 2014-01-15 10:03 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
It MAY screw up Fool's right to have eir criminal judgement
reconsidered, although that can be handled with a new case: since
we have no criminal system, it can be a TRUE/FALSE on Fool was
guilty on X, this is effectively a formal reconsideration
On 2014-01-12 1:39 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Player Inactive since
-- --
aperfectring 13 Dec 13
Roujo 9 Jan 14
all others 20 Oct 13
I have been inactive since Sept 5.
On 2014-01-02 8:43 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 20:37 -0500, Fool wrote:
Hmmm... I'm pretty sure he meant to repeal all the rules. We can go
ahead and figure this out without knowing what the end state is, no? We
should be able to come up with a generic way to replace the ruleset
On 2014-01-02 11:35 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com
mailto:fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
Upon a true
announcement that one or more specified players have
achieved
Numberwang
You have just redeemed
On 2014-01-02 1:57 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Amend Rule 2419 (Winning) to read:
[...]
Quadrant is a player switch tracked by the Herald, with values
Alpha (default), Beta, Gamma, and Delta, synonymous to quadrants
1-4 in the complex plane, respectively. A player CAN
On 2014-01-02 5:44 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
With a change of this magnitude, maybe you could post a proto-
ruleset of where you hope things would end up (including what
rules remain), then we could see if it makes logical sense as a
whole, and figure out the technicality of getting there - perhaps
On 2014-01-01 5:25 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-01 at 14:07 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Example:
MAIN TEXT
When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules,
takes precedence.
Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or unclear, it is to be
On 2013-12-29 3:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied
using direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that
can be concluded from the assumption that a statement about rule-
defined concepts is false does
On 2013-12-29 4:24 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I'm seriously tempted to take you up on your challenge and assume key
offices... but no, that would be wrong... then again, would I really make
things worse than they already are???
Why not? If you step out of line in an Office we can Exile you
On 2013-12-29 7:12 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
You're right, I concede the point and withdraw the suggestion. Stress-
testing the game against jerks[*] isn't really that much fun.
-G.
[*] Not implying that you're being a jerk just by talking about it
so far...
I've been a good boy, you know. I
On 2013-10-22 1:41 PM, Thelas Staloras wrote:
== CFJ 3397 ==
proposal 7568 passed.
Caller: Fool
Judge
On 2013-10-15 8:31 PM, Fool wrote:
The game is called 207 Kittens, and the website is
http://sites.google.com/site/diplocat24/diplonomic/game1
The open positions are for Imagi Nation, and possibly Hubliania. If the
current Hublianian player returns in a timely fashion he can still keep
his spot
In May, after the conclusion of Omnomnomic, I started a round of
Diplonomic, a sort of Diplomacy-Nomic hybrid. It is not generally open
to new players. However one player has to leave for real-life reasons,
and simultaneously a second player has silently vanished. The game does
not have any
On 2013-10-11 12:48 AM, Schrodinger's Cat wrote:
Rest now, my agora nomic,
Rest now, play time has finished,
Live, Wake up, Wake up,
And let the players come and play the game,
Wake up, Wake up,
--
Schrodinger's Cat
This nomic needs more cowbell.
-Dan (still on hold).
I see nothing in the Gerontocracy rule that prevents me from
successfully forming a party or otherwise carrying on ordinary Agoran
gameplay, although I see how a group of five Elders could choose to
step in and make it not happen.
Right.
Care to explain what I'm overlooking?
You have to
On 26/08/2013 4:45 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
CoE: omd is Speaker.
He ratified himself out of the speakership with proposal 7568. :)
I apologise to the UNDEAD for living.
-Dan
On 14/08/2013 12:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I submit (to the tree) the following persistent, revocable, promise,
'Zombie G. ':
Text: I act as specified by the casher in the cashing message.
Cashing conditions: the casher is Fool
On 13/08/2013 2:48 PM, Craig Daniel wrote:
Less, even, since outside of showing off it's considered polite to give
the one chess game you're in all your attention until it ends.
Though I think the difference here is between live games and
play-by-mail, not between nomic and chess :)
Of course, defining bad form in nomic is a minefield, and a blanket
ban would be a bad idea when part of the game is exploring these
limits. But what about a rule prohibiting clear, unambiguous and
severe breaches of good form, with clear malign intent? Or a rule
with specific prohibitions
mildly surprised Fool didn't
think of this first, but e was too focused on the dictatorship
interpretation.)
I was aware of it. (I cashed the !!! promise before my stunt,
referring to basically this.)
I also notice that nothing stops anyone else from repeating what you
just did and also winning
On 04/08/2013 10:27 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
(Professor Quirrell had remarked over their lunch that Harry really
needed to conceal his state of mind better than putting on a blank
face when someone discussed a dangerous topic, and had explained about
one-level deceptions, two-level deceptions, and
On 12/08/2013 3:39 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I hereby initiate a criminal CFJ alleging that omd, the Registrar, did
violate Rule 1789 by failing to public my Cantus Cygneus in a timely
fashion after receiving it.
I deregister.
Guess we're not getting that Ruleset from you after all, eh?
On 12/08/2013 11:44 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2013, Fool wrote in response to Craig Daniel:
I also notice that nothing stops anyone else from repeating what you
just did and also winning. I'm sure a lot of people see this. And yet
nobody's doing it. It sort of looks like nobody
Proto: the vote collector can end a vote early with support of all
(other) eligible voters; by announcement if e is the only eligible voter
or if there are none.
Don't have time to figure out how to write this one out just now. Do
feel free to submit as your own.
Cheers
-Dan
On 04/08/2013 12:39 PM, omd wrote:
But to reiterate one last time, after which I will verily shut up and wait for
a judge to be assigned: Agora necessarily must proceed according to
consensus; we have a formal procedure to arrive at a consensus, which is
reasonably fair;
One more CoE: As we
On 05/08/2013 2:53 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
This is a Public message.
Having received no objections, I flip the Publicity of
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org mailto:agora-busin...@agoranomic.org and
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org mailto:agora-offic...@agoranomic.org to
Public.
I intend to
On 03/08/2013 9:47 PM, com...@gmail.com wrote:
The main problem is that you have actively worked to prevent the controversy
from being settled, e.g. by attempting to judge the case yourself.
I've done nothing to prevent the controversy from being settled. You can
surrender anytime!
On 03/08/2013 8:32 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
Indeed, there is a proposal now to fix that issue (and, for some
reason, despite having first proposed fixing ratification, you've yet
to distribute the proposal).
Duuuhh okay 8*b
Translation for others:
a) It's a trap [1].
b) I'm pretty sure Sean
On 04/08/2013 4:43 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I've never seen a better case for Deconstructionism
[...]
I'll go recruit some Postmodern Literary Critics to play. Just watch
me. :P.
Ratification is a legal fiction. Lacanist obscurity implies that the
goal of the participant is deconstruction,
On 04/08/2013 8:55 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Sun, 4 Aug 2013, Fool wrote:
Ratification is a legal fiction. Lacanist obscurity implies
[...]
OK, please tell which Markov chain generator did you use for this.
The PoMo generator at elsewhere.org, with some editing to stuff Agora
terms
On 04/08/2013 12:45 PM, omd wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2013, Fool wrote:
c) Sean, omd, et al. should've known that I'd know it. Come on guys,
you can do better than that! :)
Don't look at me. I don't consider the dictatorship interpretation
viable enough to try to counter-scam
On 04/08/2013 4:05 PM, com...@gmail.com wrote:
This danger doesn't even sound plausible to me. Everyone's confused and goes
home, and never comes back? I doubt it.
I won't have a keyboard for a few hours but in short,
Do you have a plan to return your version of Agora to normalcy
reasonably
On 04/08/2013 4:51 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
On Sat, 2013-08-03 at 19:50 -0400, Fool wrote:
If I pull a Lindrum, then Agora is formally continuous, in that the game
played one day is the legal continuation of the game played on the
previous day. If you start another game, there's a discontinuity
On 04/08/2013 10:19 PM, omd wrote:
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Foolfool1...@gmail.com wrote:
No, the original action itself already included two clauses, I can
dergeister everyone and no other person can register. So if the original
action succeeded at all, then the counter-scam you
As the purported only player of Agora, presumably it is incumbent on
YOU to fix things.
Yes, that's fair.
If you're asking for our help, let us play the game again.
Let you re-register before closing the hole? I think not. :)
Well, if you want me to do it without your input, that's fine.
If we're attempting a single-player recovery, at this point the best
option would be to find the player with the least ambiguous registration
over the last several years, and check that it worked with every version
of the registration rules that had even been proposed in that sequence
of time.
On 02/08/2013 9:42 PM, Max Schutz wrote:
I appeal my own case on the grounds that I HAVE NO FREAKING IDEA WHAT'S
GOING ON despite me being an elder
What's going on is that it turns out NOBODY HAS ANY FREAKING IDEA WHAT'S
BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS. You thought you had a ratification system
On 02/08/2013 10:06 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
On Fri, 2013-08-02 at 21:54 -0400, Max Schutz wrote:
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:43 PM, Elliott Hirdpenguinoftheg...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On 3 August 2013 02:32, Alex Smithais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this judgement
On 03/08/2013 1:42 PM, omd wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote:
sorry
I was referring to the BlogNomic invasion actually :)
Wow, this is funny. Maybe I should have given you the recruitment reward
after all!
On 03/08/2013 4:25 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
Not sure. Agora's pretty complicated. Currently, it seems like most of our appeal is in pure
nomic fun: memorizing mechanics, figuring out how they apply in various situations (and how
to convince others you're right), and figuring out how to make
On 03/08/2013 6:25 PM, James Beirne wrote:
My favourite things to do in nomics are a) breaking things
Wait, wait, don't I know you from somewhere else?
:)
On 02/08/2013 11:49 PM, omd wrote:
Although it appears to be more difficult than we had previously
assumed to formalize the logic of the rules, there are several
possibilities that have been posited in the last few days - some do
not work, but some do.
I must have missed it then
(Lindrum, for eir part, made clear from
the start that e intended to continue Nomic World as a nomic [albeit
in a different form], and did not attempt to kick out any players.)
Now this is interesting. So, let's see:
* Lindrum continued Nomic World as a nomic, albeit in a different from
*
On 03/08/2013 7:34 PM, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 4 August 2013 00:22, Foolfool1...@gmail.com wrote:
This danger doesn't even sound plausible to me. Everyone's confused and goes
home, and never comes back? I doubt it.
More likely is that everyone gets sick of you acquiring and
maintaining your
On 03/08/2013 8:05 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 8:03 PM, wogglewoggl...@gmail.com wrote:
You can purportedly keep your dictatorship without purportedly preventing the
normal play of Agora from continuing.
- woggle
Or you can sit around and let us not do anything in -game,
On 03/08/2013 8:17 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Foolfool1...@gmail.com wrote:
Exactly, I tend to agree with Sean. I'm not sure there is even a normal play
of Agora at this point, independent of my scam.
Oh, I didn't mean I want you to do that, inasmuch as it give us a
On 03/08/2013 8:17 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
For a scam a couple years back where I deregistered everyone, I did so,
fixed the problem, gave myself and helpers patent titles, and rebooted
back to where we were in a couple messages. If it had been judged
a failure, the only thing that would have to
On 01/08/2013 1:34 PM, omd wrote:
* I also attempt to distribute this with Chamber of each of Green,
Red, and Purple (in that case, the proposal is separately Ordinary).
What's that about? Nice colour scheme though.
On 01/08/2013 1:42 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
7568 30 O omd, etc. Agora pulls a B + some ratifications
Fool, can you please distribute this in your purported gamestate as
well and adopt it?
-scshunt
Duhhh of course. I'll do it right away without looking closely. I mean
it DOES say
On 01/08/2013 1:48 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
it's a delightfully confusing time
You're welcome! :)
On 01/08/2013 10:39 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
On Jul 29, 2013, at 8:13 PM, Fool wrote:
You're right, intuitionistic logic is too weird.
Heck no. Classical logic is weird.
But classical logic is the system obeyed by truth-bearing statements!
—Of course, who cares about truth-bearing
On 01/08/2013 5:03 PM, James Beirne wrote:
FOR*1
I think you need to retract your previous vote first.
On 01/08/2013 12:23 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 12:18 AM, Max Schutzmaxschutz...@gmail.com wrote:
sorry for being a pain but in lamens terms he tried to have us all
deregistered and kicked is that it sorry my learning disability makes it a
pain when there are a lot of words
On 01/08/2013 8:40 AM, Jonathan Rouillard wrote:
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Foolfool1...@gmail.com wrote:
Nor is there any common-sense right that can be appealed to. In ordinary
terms, this is just called elimination, or more simply, losing, and
that's a perfectly routine game occurance.
On 31/07/2013 7:59 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Thu, 1 Aug 2013, Charles Walker wrote:
Davy I may, however, struggle with the requirement to be generally
capable of communicating via email.
I dunno, I hear cats are quite proficient at using keyboards.
And it's impressive how badly a lot
On 30/07/2013 5:57 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
I fail to see the alleged biconditional.
As discussed, promise destruction is secured. There is no other
instrument allowing a promise to be destroyed.
How about cashing it?
The question is specifically whether _I_ can destroy the promise, and
On 31/07/2013 10:34 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
The question is specifically whether _I_ can destroy the promise, and the
promise belongs to the Tree.
You can transfer it to yourself and cash it.
It doesn't work that way anymore, and in any case the author is
excluded, and I am the author.
On 29/07/2013 11:35 PM, omd wrote:
Per a discussion on IRC, the fact that the rules /use/ the truth value
of a particular statement for some unrelated purpose shouldn't
actually affect anything.
Agreed, shouldn't! But it seems that it does.
Consider the statement Iff this statement is
On 29/07/2013 10:43 PM, omd wrote:
Amend Rule 217 (Interpreting the Rules) by appending:
In general, the gamestate only changes as explicitly envisioned
by the Rules, and an absurdity that can be concluded from the
assumption that a statement is false does not constitute
On 30/07/2013 3:16 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
On 29/07/2013 6:15 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
(there are
definitely cases where I and coconspirators could have done this, but
chose not to; being hated by the rest of Agora is generally not worth a
dictatorship).
I
Curry's paradox hasn't gotten much attention in Agora. It came up in
discussion a couple of times, and in terms of usage in-game, all I found
was someone CFJing a free-floating sentence If this sentence is true,
then I win. That was about 10 years ago.
Well, this isn't a free-floating
As I've been told in the context of Gerontocracy (which, BTW, was lifted
by proposal 7519), the normal Agoran approach is to have fun with the
unexpected new rules, rather than complain about them. But, as I
understand, even though dictatorship isn't unprecedented around here, it
tends to be
I know some of you here advocate a less logicist and more legalist
approach, and I guess this is the bit where you watch the logicians
sweat as Peter Suber would have it. Well, the paradox I present to you
is: how should a legalist rule in a game which has a tradition of
absurd literalism?
On 29/07/2013 5:30 PM, omd wrote:
I suppose it's
appropriate to say that paraconsistent logic isn't an appropriate
answer; unless the rules use language that expect us to work
indirectly to determine the possibility of an action, it's necessary
to go all the way to intuitionistic logic.
I am,
On 29/07/2013 5:48 PM, omd wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Foolfool1...@gmail.com wrote:
In the name of Davy I, Queen of Agora Nomic, CAT 24, and her other realms, I
cause the new rule created by proposal 7537 to amend itself to read:
Hmm... it is interesting how Rule 101 (iv) might
On 29/07/2013 6:15 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
You forgot the Gerontocracy. The with notice is modified by the Elder
objections, thus breaking your loop.
I did not. Gerontocracy was lifted by proposal 7519.
Also, Agora generally denies the law of the excluded middle
It's constructive and does
On 29/07/2013 6:16 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 16:26 -0400, Fool wrote:
I cash the promise titled !!! [Text: !!!. Cashing condition: This
promise has existed for 2 months. It was created May 21.]
CoE: Which two months has it existed for? June, certainly. But it hasn't
existed
On 29/07/2013 6:20 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
The sentences in question are not directly self-referential or even
mutually-referential. This is more of a Curry-flavoured confused
deputy, with rule 2337 as the deputy. It says that the author can
destroy a promise
1 - 100 of 240 matches
Mail list logo
