My dim recollection is that it took a kind of high level scam (in the sense
of loophole exploitation, there was no attempt to win) to move away from
the Mutable/Immutable distinction. But we didn't get straight to the Power
system - that came later. The intermediate stage involved the definition
On Wed, 3 Jul 2013, Steven Gardner wrote:
My dim recollection is that it took a kind of high level scam (in the sense
of loophole exploitation, there was no attempt to win) to move away from the
Mutable/Immutable distinction. But we didn't get straight to the Power
system - that came later. The
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Steven Gardner
steven.gard...@monash.edu wrote:
On 1 July 2013 14:35, Chuck Carroll games...@chuckcarroll.org wrote:
Thanks to all the players, especially my fellow winners, and many many
thanks to Fool for running such an enjoyable game. Like others have
to prevent all such transmutations.
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: agora-discussion [mailto:agora-discussion-boun...@agoranomic.org] On
Behalf Of Fool
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 1:39 AM
To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
Subject: Re: DIS: Agora XX: 13th and final report
On 01/07/2013 12:35 AM
On Mon, 1 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
On 30/06/2013 5:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Of course, Blob's version of innocuous wasn't... so we sure didn't have a
commanding lead going into the last vote. At the end we knew if everyone in
the
game voted and spent their points on voting we'd not get
On Mon, 1 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
On 01/07/2013 12:35 AM, Chuck Carroll wrote:
Like others have mentioned, I like the idea of a Nomic with a defined
endpoint (being well aware, of course, that there is no guarantee
that the endpoint will remain unchanged) in which I can most likely
play
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
I like this idea, and was the spirit of what I was going for in my
proposal to make Agora XX resume annually. The holiday idea is also a
good one; could we perhaps replace the current Christmas time holiday?
As a student I have lots of time free
On Mon, 1 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
On 01/07/2013 12:35 AM, Chuck Carroll wrote:
Like others have mentioned, I like the idea of a Nomic with a defined
endpoint (being well aware, of course, that there is no guarantee
that the endpoint will remain unchanged) in which I can most likely
play
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Question for omd: did you have a clever way to win had 363 put us into
Zeno's Endgame? I came up with a couple thoughts but not particularly
compelling ones. -G.
Not really, since a quorum would still be required to
On Mon, 2013-07-01 at 10:21 -0400, omd wrote:
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Question for omd: did you have a clever way to win had 363 put us into
Zeno's Endgame? I came up with a couple thoughts but not particularly
compelling ones. -G.
Not
On 01/07/2013 2:54 AM, Chuck Carroll wrote:
I also have an idea or two about how a group of players could get around the
requirement of unanimity for making a rule mutable against a single player
determined to prevent all such transmutations.
The majority can kick the minority out of the
On Mon, 1 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
On 01/07/2013 2:54 AM, Chuck Carroll wrote:
I also have an idea or two about how a group of players could get around the
requirement of unanimity for making a rule mutable against a single player
determined to prevent all such transmutations.
The
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I thought at one point the complete silence at how one becomes a player
was quite weak (I guess it came up with the forfeiture-forcing). Walker,
consider taking note! -G.
Incidentally, I disliked the judgement that a
On Mon, 1 Jul 2013, omd wrote:
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I thought at one point the complete silence at how one becomes a player
was quite weak (I guess it came up with the forfeiture-forcing). Walker,
consider taking note! -G.
On Mon, 1 Jul 2013, Chuck Carroll wrote:
A very similar thought had occurred to me, except the Speaker could do even
better than independently selecting a Judge for each possible set; e could
link the sets in such a way to maximize the probability that the same Judge
is selected for each set.
On Mon, 1 Jul 2013, Chuck Carroll wrote:
I also have an idea or two about how a group of players could get around the
requirement of unanimity for making a rule mutable against a single player
determined to prevent all such transmutations.
My vague memory is that something like that is how
That was one of the ideas, yes. Not the only one. :)
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: agora-discussion [mailto:agora-discussion-boun...@agoranomic.org] On
Behalf Of Fool
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 12:19 PM
To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
Subject: Re: DIS: Agora XX: 13th and final
On 30 Jun 2013, at 03:24, Steven Gardner steven.gard...@monash.edu wrote:
On 29 June 2013 22:37, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
It has been my pleasure to be your Speaker for this bit of fast-paced
nonsense. I discharge my last formal duty by including the final ruleset
below. I will also
Reiterating other messages: thanks muchly to the organisers and
participants for this speed nomic game. I was pleased to get to make a
proposal, judge a CFJ and vote on a bunch of proposals. In other words,
it was a great sampler. And as Steve said, the defined end-point was a
feature that made
On 30 Jun 2013, at 13:01, Michael Norrish michael.norr...@nicta.com.au wrote:
Now in the same Australian time-zone as Blob and Steve, rather than the
Wellington zone that I was in when the game began, I'm afraid the IRC
chat due in 9 hours from now is not likely to see me involved.
As that
For my part, 9pm local time (1100 UTC), after the kids are in bed, is when
I'm more likely to have time to chat.
But tomorrow (Monday) night I'll probably be out seeing a friend, and
Tuesday I'm leaving for a family holiday for 5 days and I'm unlikely to
have internet access. So unless you're
On 30 June 2013 14:48, Steven Gardner steven.gard...@monash.edu wrote:
For my part, 9pm local time (1100 UTC), after the kids are in bed, is when
I'm more likely to have time to chat.
But tomorrow (Monday) night I'll probably be out seeing a friend, and
Tuesday I'm leaving for a family
Wait though: 9pm in Melbourne is 11am in London, but 4am in Los Angeles and
7am in New York. Fine for Europeans, but terrible for Americans. Aren't
most of the currently registered Agoran players Americans?
On 1 July 2013 00:02, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 June 2013
On 30 June 2013 15:28, Steven Gardner steven.gard...@monash.edu wrote:
Wait though: 9pm in Melbourne is 11am in London, but 4am in Los Angeles and
7am in New York. Fine for Europeans, but terrible for Americans. Aren't most
of the currently registered Agoran players Americans?
Yes: apart from
On 29/06/2013 5:02 PM, omd wrote:
Okay, the big question, 364. It affects more than the final scores, it
affects whether the surviving player with the most points won, or whether
the old-timers jointly won. (_Surviving_ player, if that's where you're
going with this... proposal 363 failed. No
I've hosted and played in non-Nomic Blitz PBM games before, and, while
this isn't the most argumentative bunch I've seen by any means, I have
to say this group produced the highest quality logical and legal
argumentation I've ever seen. I was really impressed. I thought there
was some
On 30 June 2013 18:14, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
Agoran CFJs take days or weeks. In XX it was 24 hours, and people were
online at different times. In some cases it seemed like people were cranking
out these fairly long well-reasoned monologues out on the fly. I guess that
comes with
On 30/06/2013 3:47 PM, Charles Walker wrote:
Well, I don't particularly care about Win by Paradox (it depends if
the game ends when someone wins as to whether I would repeal it)
I realise a win is mostly cosmetic in Agora, but ordinarily it would
end the game. Win by paradox would have ended
On 30 June 2013 21:50, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/06/2013 3:47 PM, Charles Walker wrote:
Well, I don't particularly care about Win by Paradox (it depends if
the game ends when someone wins as to whether I would repeal it)
I realise a win is mostly cosmetic in Agora, but ordinarily
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013, Fool wrote:
I've hosted and played in non-Nomic Blitz PBM games before, and, while this
isn't the most argumentative bunch I've seen by any means, I have to say this
group produced the highest quality logical and legal argumentation I've ever
seen. I was really
[oops, hit 'send' while I was just starting to type the previous message].
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013, Fool wrote:
There was some talk of legalism/logicism or idealism/pragmatism. Maybe
relative to the group I'm very far off one end of these scales. I
On 1 July 2013 03:14, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
There was some talk of legalism/logicism or idealism/pragmatism. Maybe
relative to the group I'm very far off one end of these scales. I also
expect the question of _objectives_ made a big difference. On the last
turn, a fairly large
Yes, I should be available at that time.
Blob
On 01/07/2013, at 12:02 AM, Charles Walker wrote:
On 30 June 2013 14:48, Steven Gardner steven.gard...@monash.edu wrote:
For my part, 9pm local time (1100 UTC), after the kids are in bed, is when
I'm more likely to have time to chat.
But
I'd say the coalition had its seeds in my first message to Steve, passing on
the Agora XX invitation. Our first question was how are we going to win this?
I'd like to echo my thanks to all involved. Good times.
Malcolm
On 01/07/2013, at 3:14 AM, Fool wrote:
I've hosted and played in
To my surprise and delight, Chuck almost immediately discovered the germ
of
an idea for a plausible Win By Paradox. I would have been very happy to
see
Chuck declared sole winner in this fashion. But Walker and Michael
patiently and ingeniously picked apart his argument.
It was
On 30/06/2013 5:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Of course, Blob's version of innocuous wasn't... so we sure didn't have a
commanding lead going into the last vote. At the end we knew if everyone in the
game voted and spent their points on voting we'd not get through, but just
shrugged, decided not to
On 01/07/2013 12:35 AM, Chuck Carroll wrote:
Like others have mentioned, I like the idea of a Nomic with a defined
endpoint (being well aware, of course, that there is no guarantee
that the endpoint will remain unchanged) in which I can most likely
play for just a few weeks.
But there was a
On 1 July 2013 14:35, Chuck Carroll games...@chuckcarroll.org wrote:
** **
Thanks to all the players, especially my fellow winners, and many many
thanks to Fool for running such an enjoyable game. Like others have
mentioned, I like the idea of a Nomic with a defined endpoint (being well
Good day Agorans,
A minor correction to the previous report: woggle (Alex Hunt,
ais523 in Agora, who chose someone else's nickname here as part of a
counter-scam unrelated to this game) actually got 120 points by Goethe's
proposals 358-360.
There are three CFJs pending. By rules 213 and
On 29 June 2013 13:37, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
Alex Hunt
what
On 29/06/2013 9:18 AM, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 29 June 2013 13:37, Foolfool1...@gmail.com wrote:
Alex Hunt
what
SMITH! I MEANT SMITH! ARGH!
sorry Alex. :(
On Sat, 29 Jun 2013, Fool wrote:
And we have a last minute registration, Ørjan. Just in time to lose!
Yay!
* resolves to read proposals before voting on them in the future :P
Greetings,
Ørjan, still an old-timer in spirit.
On Sat, 29 Jun 2013, Fool wrote:
Proposition 364 (Steve) passes 17:12 with Steve(x6), Chuck(x4), Ørjan,
Michael(x2), and Goethe(x4) FOR; Walker(x5), omd(x5), woggle, and Yally
AGAINST. This gives Steve 10 extra points for passing a proposal. Then it
amends rule 344, re-instates Blob, and the
On Jun 29, 2013, at 8:37 AM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
Good day Agorans,
Ah... one thing. Didn't we have a ruling that proposals do not take effect
until the voting results are announced? Since, unless I'm mixing up time zones
on my phone, this was sent after 12:04 UTC, the game ended
On 29/06/2013 1:16 PM, com...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 29, 2013, at 8:37 AM, Foolfool1...@gmail.com wrote:
Good day Agorans,
Ah... one thing. Didn't we have a ruling that proposals do not take effect
until the voting results are announced? Since, unless I'm mixing up time zones
on my
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
The previous version of poor rule 112, much vandalised and abused over its
sorry existence, extends the game to allow the final proposals to resolve,
and in any case, it didn't actually end the game
Ah, my mistake.
Was your vote
On 29 June 2013 22:37, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
It has been my pleasure to be your Speaker for this bit of fast-paced
nonsense. I discharge my last formal duty by including the final ruleset
below. I will also post an end-of-game statement, and I encourage other
players to do likewise.
47 matches
Mail list logo
