e
symbols). These can be collectively distinguished from logographic,
ideographic, and pictographic systems, where a single symbol represents
a much larger component of meaning.
-zefram
ihope wrote:
>This contract purports to regulate becoming a party to
>it.
No it doesn't. It *purports* to purport to regulate it, but doesn't
actually purport to regulate it.
-zefram
"I QUIT" proposed as supplying some boundaries.
I pointed out that the program technically invoked undefined behaviour.
It was eventually, like the earlier attempt, treated as null, probably
for unclarity rather than the technical violation of the C standard.
-zefram
Elliott Hird wrote:
>I perform every action that can be performed by announcement.
This has been tried before, by KoJen IIRC. E used the modifier
"simultaneously" too. It was generally regarded as a null action,
presumably due to ambiguity and unreasonableness.
-zefram
t with meaningful
strings yet). The next generation of hash algorithms should arrive in
the next year or so. Until then, attacks can be practically deterred
by using SHA-512.
-zefram
share of it only
at the expense of someone else's share.
I ranted quite a bit about intra-nomic economics back in early 2007.
Check the archives.
-zefram
Ian Kelly wrote:
>The R1868 clause should probably say "subject to restriction by other
>rules", though.
No, it's modified wholesale for appeal cases.
-zefram
ing graphs that show
their growth rate in nepers per annum.
-zefram
it. It would still mean the same thing without
the clarification.
-zefram
Ian Kelly wrote:
>I spend 3 Db + 3 E to gain 3 G.
>I spend 2 D + 2 Gb to gain 2 Bb.
>I spend E + Db to gain Bb.
How do these work?
-zefram
le to
determine whether the condition is true. It is therefore ineffective
in delegating the ability to take actions.
-zefram
the verdict is GUILTY.
-zefram
any of these things in a
conditional manner.
> the judgement is in effect as a new binding agreement between
> the parties, descending directly from the original contract and
> acting in conjunction with it.
Nice approach. I think you need a bit more explicitude in defining
descendance.
-zefram
be
>> clear about the role of the criminal court within a contract and as
>> applied to contracts generally.
Reasonably clear that equity and criminal courts both apply, both to
the rules and to non-rule contracts.
>> You need to be clear about where
>> contractual obligations are rooted.
Not explicit, and I think it's not sufficiently clear.
-zefram
generally having this meaning
when quoting someone else's message, but in this particular case comex's
intent was clear.
-zefram
Elliott Hird wrote:
>How do you view a vote of PRESENT regarding a proposal you
>made?
It's expressing no opinion or a neutral opinion.
-zefram
ossible: they're meant to not interact with each other at all.
The correct fix (if you consider the current form broken) is to clarify
that the allegation of age must be that in the indictment.
-zefram
T due to having left a critical word
out of some sentence in a similar-looking fashion. I think it's in one
of the mail logs on my web page; it was some time in the late 1990s.
-zefram
e will keep perceiving more.
-zefram
that you cite. The usual
process of an appeal revokes the judgement. R911:
When an appeal case is initiated, the prior question is
suspended, and remains so until the question on disposition in
the appeal case is judged.
-zefram
-zefram
I generally presume that there can't be anything worthwhile in it.
tends to be included all the time (from those people who send it at all),
suggests that it repeats some of the actual message content. Since it
content-type application/ms-tnef. Examining the file with a text v
Charles Reiss wrote:
>On a side note, I request that H. Rulekeepor update the annotation of
>R2191, because CFJ 1876 has been overturned by rule changes.
Sorry, I'm way behind on annotations.
-zefram
ore structured
shorthand: the definition needs to explicitly pull out the time limit
from its invocation and put that in the SHALL clause but not the CAN.
-zefram
text of the equation.
-zefram
rial phase. Everyone is entitled
to mount a defence.
-zefram
sting for anyone who doesn't at least *want* to be a player.
-zefram
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>seems a bit odd to need to bring a second equity case when the results
>of the first were completely ignored.
No, this is just where it gets interesting. The first equation was
pretty permissive; you get to write a more coercive one.
-zefram
Ben Caplan wrote:
>Is that a database bug or a human error?
The truncated title was human error. Fixed in my database.
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>A case to consider. You offer to give me a quatloo for a tingo. I say
>"okay" and give you a tingo. You say "I've changed my mind, here's the
>tingo back." Is the contract broken, or is equity satisfied?
Both.
-zefram
J attracting a separate
fifteen days of chokey.)
If you want coercion, which evidently you do, then (a) credibly threatan
repeated criminal penalties, and (b) nominate someone else for the office.
-zefram
Ian Kelly wrote:
>I disagree. "30 days or until event X" is a duration. We just don't
>know its magnitude ahead of time.
On the contrary: it's a period, we don't know its duration.
-zefram
ng to bend it in that
direction won't work.
-zefram
no-break space.
This is an annoyance. I translate no-break space to space in the
proposal database. I'd assumed that you do it deliberately.
-zefram
Ankica Zilic wrote:
>I think I will never get what this game is about
Oh dear, I thought the web page made it fairly clear.
> cause it lasts so long and
>you have created so many rools
Yes, this is what this game is about.
-zefram
re. That'd make it the same Received:
header that is significant in each message, and any skew affects everyone
equally.
-zefram
s. We've also always ignored a Date: header that is
manifestly wrong. Usually, though, the Date: value is close enough to
give the right results.
When I was registrar, many years ago, I actually used the appropriate
Received: header routinely. As far as I know this is unique among
officeholders.
-zefram
Roger Hicks wrote:
>Uh...yeah. I'm gonna recuse myself from this one too.
Go on then.
-zefram
tively,
I would consider that a bad use of the CotC's power.
> or assigning completely new panels when
>the members of the old panel fail to request such support.
I'm neutral on this.
-zefram
s, when you should instead be redeveloping your database to
reflect the new structure.
-zefram
our case file for CFJ 1897a doesn't formally specify the "to TRUE"
part of the judgement, leaving it to be extracted from the panellists'
arguments.
-zefram
rks best that way. So go ahead and encourage
the presentation of arguments, but in the same proposal please explicate
that the judge ought to make eir own investigation.
-zefram
Ian Kelly wrote:
>I'll trade E notes for F, Ab, and A (using the mechanism of spending
>two notes to award one).
I'm similarly willing to trade D, E, or G notes (I have) for A notes
(I want).
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Did you miss my emperor proposals, or is this on purpose? -Goethe
Oops. Error.
-zefram
ip)
a foreign nomic's rules are generally not adjudicable within Agora.
It's also horrendously open to abuse. It needs at minimum to apply only
to non-Unknown foreign nomics.
-zefram
does?
Since the rule's provisions on this are contradictory in this case,
custom is that the status quo continues: the problematic assets have no
owner, despite the "exactly one owner" provision.
-zefram
ancient
items such as the authoritative books on English Common Law.
However, you can certainly start from the Constitution Act 1982
<http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html>, which contains explicit
references to other parts of the Canadian constitution and lays down a
procedure for amending the constitution.
-zefram
So Canada wasn't a nomic before. But it definitely is now, per R2200.
Would the ambassador care to recognise it?
-zefram
tities, which are assets, and which it confusingly refers to as
"partnerships".
>R105 only allows rules to be repealed via instrument, which the "R2166
>is an asset" pledge wasn't.
Rule 2166 is an instrument.
-zefram
Ian Kelly wrote:
>The mechanism is almost identical to the one used by the Agoran
>Agricultural Society...
Yes. I didn't notice the problem with that one at the time.
-zefram
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Create a rule titled "Political Parties" with Power 2 and this text:
I dislike the concept. It's also grossly misnamed, having nothing at
all to do with political opinions.
-zefram
Josiah Worcester wrote:
>I intend to appeal this. CHOKEY is unreasonable.
I object. I'm happy to serve my pi seconds in chokey to uphold the rules.
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>But the fact that it was not judged depended on the judgement that
>BobTHJ delivered.
It depends on BobTHJ's possibly-judgement being accurate, which is quite
independent of whether it's a judgement.
-zefram
ood". Although actually that on its own still isn't
a paradox: something that looks like a judgement and has sufficiently
persuasive arguments can perfectly well guide play (on an informal basis)
without actually being a judgement.
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>But this is all beside the point. The question on paradox is: does the
>*formal system* contain a paradox by its own internal logic?
The formal system does not claim that judgements are necessarily correct,
so no.
-zefram
ason
to contravene that recommendation.
> Whether or not it "is" false is not worth
>mooting outside of the judicial system.
On the contrary. If we were to act according to a false judgement then
we would cease to be playing Agora. It is of the utmost importance.
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Judged FALSE -> not judgement -> not judged FALSE
As I pointed out, judging it FALSE doesn't cause the statement to
be false. Hence your "Judged FALSE -> not judgement" step is faulty.
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>It's a paradox if FALSE remains/is upheld, because it self-nullifies
>BobTHJ's ability to judge.
No it bloody doesn't. It's either not a judgement or an incorrect
judgement.
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Hmm, you're right, but it misses my reason for proposing this. Even if
>resolved de novo (which I agree works fine), it's still a paradox,
>subject to Win.
I'm confused. Where's the paradox?
-zefram
t it is on (R591).
The appropriate response to conflicting judgements, including where the
judgements are on their own validity, is a fresh CFJ to decide the issue
de novo in an ontologically unequivocal manner.
-zefram
Roger Hicks wrote:
>Can my judgment even be considered valid anyway?
Yes. Accepting Goethe's precedent, you are in fact the judge of that CFJ,
and you validly made an inappropriate judgement. Which is illegal.
-zefram
;s relevant because it determines
whether certain historical game actions actually occurred; I'm not sure
if we have any knock-on effect on current game state, but there could
perfectly well be.
-zefram
#x27;s an obvious scam here. "What word am I thinking of?" is a valid
puzzle, as long as it is accompanied by the correct answer "phlogiston"
which is known only to the submitter and eir accomplice.
-zefram
those players had immediately
> before the adoption of the proposal.
If you want zero-sum, you'll need a provision to redistribute when
someone is deregistered with Partisanship != 1.0.
-zefram
imum of two thirds? A set of two consecutive Takeover
Proposals can circumvent this.
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Ew, I just can't get line breaks right in Webpine,
No, you got them right. Murphy mangled it.
-zefram
Roger Hicks wrote:
>What permits the BobTHJ-in-Vote-Market position to deregister?
Its playerhood, which is tied to the BobTHJ aspect.
-zefram
BobTHJ CAN register.
...
>First, I offer this clarification. It is not, strictly speaking, by virtue
>of "being BobTHJ" that Zefram is taken to deputize, it is by virtue of BobTHJ
>holding the position of "party to the Vote Market who has sold a particular
>ticket an
Taral wrote:
>Amend Rule 591 by adding this paragraph at the end:
>
> The Clerk of the Courts CAN disqualify a player from a case
> without 2 objections.
Any case (as the wording seems to say), or just inquiry cases (the
subject of R591)?
-zefram
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>My search-fu through my saved messages is failing me. Would you
>please throw me a bone, er, precedent?
CFJ 1765.
-zefram
's an older form of "appeal by proposal", used in the 1994 era,
which involved proposals along the lines of "The judgement in CFJ 123
is hereby changed to TRUE.".
-zefram
a sort
>of "resignation" of the "player" position.
Simpler than that: the ability to deregister (via that clause) is specific
to the "player" position.
-zefram
rket", in much the same way that UK laws are enacted
by the Queen-in-Parliament rather than by the Queen per se.
-zefram
ur distinction between BobTHJ-identity (not a position)
and BobTHJ-as-player (a position), I can deputise for BobTHJ-as-player
to deregister BobTHJ(-as-player). Then BobTHJ-as-player, which is
essentially a rule-defined entity, has factually deregistered emself.
-zefram
nt. If you were in the above 'position',
>wouldn't it require *your* deregistration to satisfy the terms of the
>contract?
Er, yes, but I'm not in that position, BobTHJ is.
-zefram
itional, I'm somewhat surprised
that Goethe interpreted it differently.
-zefram
pecified
>contractual position in the Vote Market.
Thank you. I did intend the parenthetical to be taken into account,
as I wasn't sure exactly which of BobTHJ's overlapping "positions"
would be operative.
>CFJ 1898: TRUE Even if CFJ 1897 is reversed, Zefram's message clearly
> could not be taken to apply to emself, and would instead
> be a failed action.
And I included an interpretation clause, for overkill.
-zefram
CFJ decisions have been accepted past
>their deadline, up to the point where the CFJ is assigned to another
>player.
Also a bad analogy: rule 2158 explicitly governs ability to pass
judgement, without imposing any deadline on the ability. Obligation to
judge, and the time limit therein, is a separate clause.
-zefram
Roger Hicks wrote:
>I didn't modify anything except the text.
The text is one of the attributes of a proposal that you can't modify
after submission. I suggest that you withdraw your existing proposal
and submit a new one that has the text that you want.
-zefram
explicit rules that
provides means for itself to be altered arbitrarily, including
changes to those rules which govern rule changes.
-zefram
Ed Murphy wrote:
>I've just flipped a couple settings that should turn it off. Here's a
>sample, copy+pasted from my draft document as usual:
That's better. No format= in the Content-Type, and correct alignment
in the physical data.
-zefram
and must die. Plain text used to have
consistent rendering, until that came along.
-zefram
Ben Caplan wrote:
> 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.
-zefram
1:04 GMT
If you're going to include the panel's internal deliberations in the
record, you ought to be consistent about it. Goethe first `moved' to
AFFIRM, at 07 Feb 2008 03:26:48 GMT, before the motions to REMAND began.
-zefram
ld therefore not
reach the list at all.
-zefram
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 state of the ruleset).
-zefram
comex wrote:
>I dare you to propose that.
If e does, then, just for you, I'll vote AGAINT on it.
-zefram
that it would not get distributed to subscribers?
In what way does this qualify as sending a message to the forum?
-zefram
comex wrote:
>CFJ 1772
Thought you'd claim that. The fact that the ruleset isn't a R1742
contract doesn't prevent it being an "agreement" for the purposes of
R101 rights.
-zefram
er, it's probably trumped by R101(v).
What happened to the alleged message on 2008-02-01, sent from "dip per"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>? Had you sent any other `test' messages from
accounts other than your usual?
-zefram
erset encodings. Even
among those of us who can interpret non-ASCII characters in email, their
presence in any game text would be a hinderance to the normal processes
of official recordkeeping and the production of derivative texts.
-zefram
at
silently corrupt the historical record by default.
-zefram
should be similarly modified, and I suggest that you express it as
"half the number of eligible voters (rounded down)" so that eligibility
only needs to be edited in one place.
-zefram
Ben Caplan wrote:
>I also wish to address the original spirit of the question by considering
>whether the government, law, etc. of Canada are nomics.
Good work.
-zefram
(unlike in Murphy's reposting).
-zefram
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 interpretation, at least.
-zefram
> I still have to spend more time figuring it out than if
>I'd built it myself
This should be noted as one of the perils of automation. This is part
of why I favour each officer developing eir own automation.
-zefram
rt was
not achieved. For a "without objection", likewise, only sufficient votes
need be reported to show that objection was achieved, but a complete
tally is required to show that there was not sufficient objection.
-zefram
is an acceptable synonym for "OBJECT" on
a dependent action. If you don't get on with this then we risk running
out of time for the appeal.
-zefram
o report *at least* 2 votes (other than eir own), if there are 2 or more.
The purpose of my proposed revision was to clearly require that the
vote tally include sufficient votes to be sure of the result (while not
requiring the reporting of any more votes than necessary).
-zefram
e right.
>(at least, it worked smoothly for years).
Note that in these years there weren't partnerships, so no need for a
complication in dependent actions to cope with them.
-zefram
101 - 200 of 1324 matches
Mail list logo
