Here I number and repeat two new proposals:
324 (Chuck):
I propose that rule 110 be transmuted to mutable.
325 (Chuck):
I propose the following rule be created:
If at any time four or more Voters have identical non-zero scores,
the Speaker wins the game.
Voting closes in 24 hours.
-Dan
On 22/06/2013 9:09 AM, Chuck Carroll wrote:
I invoke Judgement on the following statement:
The “proposals” numbered 312, 313, 318, 319, and 320 are not proposed
rule changes, and will have no effect if adopted, regardless of the
adoption of other currently existing proposals.
Reasoning: they
I call for judgement on the validity of proposal 322. See rule 105. 322
contains a conditional:
322 (Walker):
- If the Rule initially numbered 106 is mutable, amend Rule 210 to
read ...
This isn't like the rule formerly numbered 211 which isn't a condition
but a way to refer to a rule.
By
On 22/06/2013 10:01 AM, Chuck Carroll wrote:
I propose the following rule be created:
If at any time four or more Voters have identical non-zero scores, the
Speaker wins the game.
Chuck
This has an interesting interaction with 306... you (among others) could
make me win by announcement.
Voting on 306 and 307 has closed. 308 and 309 still open for 12 hours.
Here I just number and repeat the new proposal. Voting on it closes in
24 hours. Full report shortly.
-Dan
310 (Walker):
I propose that Rule 114 be made mutable.
Good day Agorans,
Since last report, proposals 305 and 306 were adopted, and 307
failed. This adds two new mutable rules. 305 forbids bribery, and 306
allows points to be transfered by announcement. The current ruleset is
included at the end of this message.
The passage of 305 (Chuck) was
On 21/06/2013 1:32 AM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Michael Norrish
michael.norr...@nicta.com.au wrote:
I register for the Agora XX game.
Michael
Now I feel like there was no reason to modify Rule 104.
I know eh! Should we be taking bets on Peter Suber showing
On 21/06/2013 9:38 AM, omd wrote:
On Friday, June 21, 2013, Fool wrote:
Here I just number and repeat the new proposal.
May I request that you always start a new thread for such numberings so
that it's harder for proposals to get lost in the confusion?
Thanks.
I will. Sorry about
Voting on these two are closed.
308 fails 3:2 (Chuck, omd, and scshunt FOR; Walker and Michael AGAINST.
It was a transmutation.)
309 passes 3:1 (Chuck, omd, and Michael FOR; scshunt AGAINST.)
This amends rule 206:
I propose that Rule 206 be amended to read:
Initially, each Voter has
scshunt invokes judgement on two statements:
I invoke judgement on whether Rule 304 had the power to repeal itself
without that rule change being voted on. I think that all rule changes
must be voted on and cannot occur automatically.
and
I invoke judgement on whether or not Goethe's
I'll send a report out shortly. Here I'm numbering and repeating the two
new proposals. As always you can vote by just replying to this message,
privately if you like.
Voting on these closes in 24h.
-Dan
306 (omd):
I propose that a rule be enacted as follows:
A player may transfer points
Good day Agorans,
Since last report, proposals 301, 302, and 304 were adopted, while
303 failed. The overall change to the ruleset is just that 211 is
amended, now 302. The current ruleset is included at the end of this
message.
There are three new proposals. Voting on 305 closes in about
Voting on 305 closes in about an hour. 306 and 307 close in about 11
hours. Here I'm just numbering and repeating the two new proposals. As
always you can vote by just replying to this message, privately if you like.
Voting on these closes in 24h.
-Dan
308 (Chuck):
I propose that Rule
Voting is closed on this. It passes 2:1 (Chuck,Yally vs Walker). This
enacts rule 305. Chuck +10 and Walker +2 by rule 302. Full report in
about 10 hours.
Voting on 306-309 is still open. Vote early, vote often!
-Dan
305 (Chuck):
I propose that the following rule be created:
No rule may
Good day Agorans,
Since last report there were four proposals, and two new
registrations, Chuck and ehird. The rules have not yet been changed.
The four proposals were numbered 301-304 and voting closes in about 13
hours. The five Voters now are omd, FSX, Walker, Chuck, and ehird. Then
Hello,
Voting is closed on these. Full report in about 10 hours, but the
following happens:
301 (by Chuck) passes (FOR: Chuck,Walker,ehird; AGAINST: omd)
- 301 amends 211.
- Chuck +(random 1-10 6) and omd +2 by 301.
302 (by Walker) passes (FOR: FSX,Walker,ehird; AGAINST: omd,Chuck)
-
Hello all,
Here I'll only number and repeat the one proposal made that hasn't yet
been numbered. You can vote by just replying to this message, privately
if you like.
Voting on this closes in 24h.
-Dan
305 (Chuck):
I propose that the following rule be created:
No rule may award or
On 19/06/2013 6:14 PM, omd wrote:
I don't care about winning, at least the way wins usually work in
Agora ...
(as opposed to wins such as paradoxes which somewhat cheapen the
whole concept)
Hey! Aren't you about to win by CFJ 3334?
But I'm glad to hear people's thoughts on this topic.
On 19/06/2013 4:43 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I think instead of kudos, we should start awarding dope slaps.
Or maybe give the Herald a rubber chicken.
Maybe you need a sort of anti-Herald to hand out this kind of
anti-award. I dunno, some sort of Fool perhaps.
begins
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 20:19:36 -0400
From: Fool fool1...@gmail.com
To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org
Greetings Agorans,
I have appointed myself to the Speakership of Agora's Vigintennial
Blitz game (AKA Agora XX). I commit to you all that I shall make
myself availble for the duties
Good day Agorans,
This time of day (around 11:00 UTC) will be my usual reporting time.
There's not much to report today. There have been no proposals. The
ruleset is unchanged, I will not repeat it.
There are three new Voters: omd, Flameshadowxeroshin, and Walker joined,
in that order,
On 17/06/2013 9:06 PM, omd wrote:
Vigintennial Blitz CFJ: If a proposal purports to reward or penalize
voters based on the votes they cast on that proposal, or based on any
other action taken / not taken by any player prior to the end of the
voting period on that proposal, then that proposal
On 18/06/2013 4:46 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
From only having Watched with half an ear,
and Listened with one eye,
how does Agora XX work and which list would I have to be on to play
it? I've gathered it's a speed Agora, right?
Yup, speed Agora, this list, and I reposted the 1st report
On 18/06/2013 7:58 AM, Chuck Carroll wrote:
I join Agora XX.
Chuck
Well, hog tie me to a TTY and set my wizard bit, look who's here!
-Dan
Hello all,
A report in about 11h. Here I'll only number and repeat the proposals
made so far, so that you can vote by just replying to this message. You
can vote privately, as omd reminds you.
Voting on these four closes in 24h.
-Dan
301 (Chuck):
I propose that Rule 211 be amended to
Retrying with a reply-to header so that you'll reply to me by default.
Original Message
Subject: Agora XX proposals 301-304
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:28:19 -0400
From: Fool fool1...@gmail.com
To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
Hello all,
A report in about 11h. Here I'll only
Proposal 7476 (AI=2, PF=Y0, Ordinary, Disinterested) by scshunt
Staledated
Amend Rule 879 to read Quorum on an Agoran Decision is the greater
of one-third the number of active players and 5.
The rule used to be eligible voters with a positive voting limit on
that decision rather than active
1. An accelerated game of Nomic, starting from Agora's initial
ruleset (possibly slightly modified if necessary), but made so that
timelimits are extremely short. The game would have an immutable rule
ending it within a week if it hadn't already, the winner being the
player with the most points.
On 17/06/2013 8:21 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Foolfool1...@gmail.com wrote:
I designate the agora-business mailing list for playing this game
(rule 107). If this causes annoyance to the non-players we can move.
Please. Anywhere but a public forum.
-scshunt
On 17/06/2013 8:29 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Foolfool1...@gmail.com wrote:
Meaning you'd actually prefer it on agora-discussion? It seems to me the
discussion forum is busier, but I defer to you guys.
Or if you meant not on agoranomic.org at all, I'll GTFO :)
-Dan
Kerim Aydin, Thu, 13 Jun 2013 21:58:26 -0700 :
For that matter, is the card paradox still compelling? I had a look at the
current ruleset and I'd guess that nowadays the card paradox would be
resolved by R1030 (In a conflict between rules...) or R2240 (In a
conflict between clauses of the same
Kerim Aydin, Wed, 12 Jun 2013 07:37:53 -0700 :
Some history:
From 2002 (when I started) to 2005 no one thought about paradoxes at all in
this sense. Paradoxical CFJ statements were simply DISMISSED as meaningless.
I think the aforementioned lawyer had a hand in creating this system (before
my
omd, Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:35:23 -0700 :
Precedence between rules (though not clauses) was largely the same in
2005 as it is now; the wording of the card paradox is that card shall
be deemed to have not been played, which is not really a rule
conflict, though it could arguably be interpreted
Is this (and a bunch of other CFJs on the topic of paradoxes) all about rule
2358? Why not just change that?
Although Rule 2358 mostly depends on the traditional interpretation of
paradoxes as causing fundamental logical indeterminacy, and might have
to be changed if this CFJ finds otherwise,
Lawyers and logicians also have different concepts of solving a
problem.
Just wondering, is anyone here a lawyer? I mean, by profession, not in
any allegorical sense.
(anyone except Ienpw III, who didn't see me.)
-Dan Mehkeri
Is this (and a bunch of other CFJs on the topic of paradoxes) all about
rule 2358? Why not just change that?
-Dan
E can also send scrambled codebooks to one or more participants. This would
be detected by the victims after the fact, but they could not prove it.
This was indeed a serious problem with the original version, which I
should have realized immediately, but the version up for vote has
fixed it,
Ah, trying to use crypto to do simultaneous moves.
Simultaneous votes on some things can be way more interesting, for
instance in prisoner's dilemma type situations. Otherwise the
advantage goes to whoever's checking the mailing list closest to the
deadline.
Now, am I mistaken that the
On 15 May 2013 15:14, Jonathan Rouillardjonathan.rouill...@gmail.com
wrote:
However, marking it as abandoned doesn't feel right - the players
didn't abandon the game, it just ended properly.
So, ended properly was a possibility not hitherto contemplated by Agora?
Another possibility
I'm not a player. I'm just spying on you hatless evildoers.
201 - 240 of 240 matches
Mail list logo
