On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 4 August 2013 05:01, Craig Daniel teu...@pobox.com wrote:
Man, I've tried that with B. Server discontinuities make it more
difficult than it's likely to be for Agora, to the point where as far
as I can tell
On Sun, 4 Aug 2013, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 4 August 2013 02:54, com...@gmail.com wrote:
You may argue that after this long, there is probably *some* other
reason why the platonic gamestate is wrong, and a few have been
proposed over the years. But we try our best.
If sufficient
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 Sun, 4 Aug 2013, Fool wrote:
It could be said that the example of Lacanist obscurity exists already in rule
217, although in a more postsemantic sense. The rules are contextualised into
a textual subcultural theory that includes language as a reality. Therefore, a
number of theories
On Sun, 4 Aug 2013, Fool wrote:
Ratification is a legal fiction. Lacanist obscurity implies that the goal of
the participant is deconstruction, but only if consciousness is distinct from
language; if that is not the case, we can assume that discourse must come
from the masses. In a sense,
On Sun, 4 Aug 2013, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 4 August 2013 02:54, com...@gmail.com wrote:
You may argue that after this long, there is probably *some* other reason why
the platonic gamestate is wrong, and a few have been proposed over the years.
But we try our best.
If sufficient mail
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 in
On 4 August 2013 09:43, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I'm not going to tell you that you *can't* have the fun of reconstructing
your own personal platonic state (to each eir own), but if it bogs us
down and distracts us from actually playing based on our own current
(non-platonic)
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 4 August 2013 09:43, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I'm not going to tell you that you *can't* have the fun of reconstructing
your own personal platonic state (to each eir own), but if it bogs us
On Saturday, August 3, 2013, Fool wrote:
(or your attempted invasion of Blognomic would have been, had you
succeeded, as you mention).
Sorry, one last thing. As I said, some players might have misunderstood,
but the text of the invasion CfJ was clear: all it would have done is made
Agora
On Sunday, August 4, 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote:
If you go back and do this, you will come across some edge cases, where
the rules are silent or inconsistent, where you must make some decision.
The decision you might make, however logical, might not be the decision
I might make, nor omd, Steve,
On 4 August 2013 18:19, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
In theory, Rule 217 should make the consensus platonically correct unless it
blatantly contradicts the text. In practice, it might not actually stand up
for 20 years, never mind the time before that wording existed and the
likelihood of
On Sun, 4 Aug 2013, Fool wrote:
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,
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.
However, as we've seen, this
On Sun, 4 Aug 2013, omd wrote:
although I suppose it's the job of an invasion to be polite,
Someone should have told that to the mongols.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
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 Sun, 2013-08-04 at 22:16 -0400, Fool wrote:
Okay. Why would he have to have been continuously registered since
ratification broke? Wouldn't it be sufficient for him to have registered
after ratification broke, and been continously registered since?
It reduces the variables as much as
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 Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
normally we just CFJ on
whether they worked and then let the Registrar's report ratify, but if
ratification is broken, that doesn't necessarily work, both due to the
possibility of the CFJ having been judged incorrectly
On Sun, 2013-08-04 at 22:37 -0400, Fool wrote:
There's someone the vast majority of Agorans would be willing to appoint
as dictator in order to fix this? :)
Sure. For instance, I could probably get a 2/3 supermajority for a
dictatorship proposal if I gave a good explanation for why it was
(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 Sat, 3 Aug 2013, Fool wrote:
* Lindrum continued Nomic World as a nomic, albeit in a different from
Just for the historical record, what happened was, Lindrum claimed to
take power, and wrote a new ruleset. Everyone pretty much thought
(takeover aside) that Lindrum's ruleset was better
Many of us value that continuity highly, and would consider an attempt to
restart the game with different rules unacceptable (this was a large factor in
the death of B). Although the ratification bug is very unfortunate, it is
almost certain that my emergency proposal will paper over it, so
On 4 August 2013 02:54, com...@gmail.com wrote:
You may argue that after this long, there is probably *some* other reason why
the platonic gamestate is wrong, and a few have been proposed over the years.
But we try our best.
If sufficient mail archives were obtained, I for one would find
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 10:13 PM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 4 August 2013 02:54, com...@gmail.com wrote:
You may argue that after this long, there is probably *some* other reason
why the platonic gamestate is wrong, and a few have been proposed over the
years.
On 4 August 2013 05:01, Craig Daniel teu...@pobox.com wrote:
Man, I've tried that with B. Server discontinuities make it more
difficult than it's likely to be for Agora, to the point where as far
as I can tell the gamestate is that we're in a maybe-fixable emergency
but don't know which
26 matches
Mail list logo
