Re: DIS: DotNomic
2008/7/28 Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]: http://dotnomic.wikidot.com/ I don't personally have time to keep up with any forum-based nomics, but I recommend that H. Ambassador BobTHJ recognize it per Rule 2185. From their website: I just saw mention of DotNomic in Agora's discussion list. I'd like to to take this opportunity to say hello to Agora Nomic in general, as well as Agora's Ambassador BobTHJ. I'd also like to make note that foreign communications are probably most appropriate in the Discussion forum, though there are no rules currently stating anything to that effect. Cool, cool. Seems like a solid base. I note that Canada was never officially recognized :-)
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2081-85 assigned to OscarMeyr
Elliott Hird wrote: This is an utterly preposterous judgement, as I was assisting in Goethe's demonstration that failing speech acts were not illegal. It was not a threat in any shape or form. I concur that it was not a threat, but also note that threats to kill do not violate the rules anyway. It was a deliberately false statement, and that *does* violate the rules. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5658-5667
2008/7/28 Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Aha, I only have 2.2 (Zenith is still running RH9, and I still haven't gotten around to buying its successor). You can run it on rutian. :P Note that the expression evaluates to the string '\x03', but I guess maybe, since it's a single character, we can treat it as 3. tusho
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2081-85 assigned to OscarMeyr
2008/7/28 Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED]: It was a deliberately false statement, and that *does* violate the rules. -zefram You and I *both* know that we disagree strongly on this point.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2107 assigned to Wooble
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 9:11 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is an interesting sentence, as I'm not a player and therefore have no Notes, and certainly won't have any in the next 72 hours. Well, then appealing the case so there's a chance the sentence won't go into effect until you obtain some notes was mighty noble of you.
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2099 assigned to Wooble
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 3:17 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: == CFJ 2099 == I transfer all my crops to the PNP. I find that that precedents in CFJs 2079-2080 are irrelevant to this case; in those cases the announcement that the initiator was initiating a CFJ was itself the statement to be considered by the judge, while in this case the initiation of the case is separate from the statement to be evaluated. Since Rule 591 tells us that the purpose of an inquiry case is to determine the veracity of a statement, we should generally take the statement in question to be a simple statement of fact to be evaluated as long as that's a reasonable interpretation of the statement. A CFJ into I hereby transfer all of my crops to the PNP would not lend itself to such an interpretation, and had that been the wording of the statement in this case, it would be reasonable for the recordkeepor of crops to record that the initiator of the case had transferred all eir crops, and assuming the transfer was possible the statement would be TRUE. However, in this case the statement can reasonably be interpreted as a simple statement of fact, so we shouldn't take it to be both a statement to be evaluated for veracity and an announcement. As I've seen no evidence that Pavitra does generally transfer all eir crops to the PNP (or indeed that e's ever transferred any crops at all to the PNP), I judge FALSE. --Wooble
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2107a assigned to BobTHJ, Murphy, comex
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 10:12 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Normally I would like to give ihope the benefit of the doubt, because people should not be penalized for stating their opinions about a controversy. But it is true that ihope used this statement, unqualified, as arguments for a criminal CFJ [1]; e did not even bother to defend himself [2]; and now he is threatening the judicial system. I intend, with the support of the rest of the panel, to REMAND this case, if only to let Judge Wooble pick a better punishment. [1] http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-July/012744.html [2] http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/format.php?cfj=2107 I don't see why the fact that I used it as arguments for a criminal CFJ is relevant. The statement that I didn't bother to defend myself is patently false, as I did defend myself by stating why UNDECIDABLE is never appropriate. Threatening the judicial system is quite the loaded term; all I did was point out that knowingly making an inappropriate judgement is illegal. --Ivan Hope CXXVII --Ivan Hope CXXVII
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2107a assigned to BobTHJ, Murphy, comex
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 12:35 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 10:12 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Normally I would like to give ihope the benefit of the doubt, because people should not be penalized for stating their opinions about a controversy. But it is true that ihope used this statement, unqualified, as arguments for a criminal CFJ [1]; e did not even bother to defend himself [2]; and now he is threatening the judicial system. I intend, with the support of the rest of the panel, to REMAND this case, if only to let Judge Wooble pick a better punishment. [1] http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-July/012744.html [2] http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/format.php?cfj=2107 I don't see why the fact that I used it as arguments for a criminal CFJ is relevant. The statement that I didn't bother to defend myself is patently false, as I did defend myself by stating why UNDECIDABLE is never appropriate. True, but when later asked to defend yourself, you replied only with: I've already made some arguments, and having forgotten what this case is all about, I can't make any more at the moment. Anyway, this is immaterial to the facts of the case, serving only to demonstrate somewhat bad faith. I still don't understand why (other situations where UNDECIDABLE might be appropriate aside) This statement is false is not UNDECIDABLE. Even if the defendant forgot logically undecidable as e claims, that statement is plainly not capable of being accurately described as either false or true. By the way, I think Appellant Zefram missed the point in CFJ 2086-2087... at the moment that I say I CFJ on xxx, it is true that I am initiating a CFJ on xxx (and not true at any other time). However, is it then true that CFJ xxx exists? Does it exist while it is being initiated? I would say that, given the analogy with an entity that takes nonzero time to instantiate (say, a database record), the CFJ does not exist while it is being created... but that is a different case.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2107a assigned to BobTHJ, Murphy, comex
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 1:02 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By the way, I think Appellant Zefram missed the point in CFJ 2086-2087... at the moment that I say I CFJ on xxx, it is true that I am initiating a CFJ on xxx (and not true at any other time). However, is it then true that CFJ xxx exists? Does it exist while it is being initiated? R591 uses the language at the time the inquiry case was initiated, which to me means the time when the case started to exist, which, by definition, would be a time when it existed. In any case, no rule says the case comes to exist some time after it's initiated, and precedent (as well as, IMO, common sense) indicates that they do exist at the appropriate time to make CFJs into their own existence TRUE.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5658-5667
tusho wrote: You can run it on rutian. :P What's that?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5658-5667
2008/7/28 Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]: What's that? eso-std.org's server, so named when we (me and ais523) were bashing randomly-typed names off our keyboards over IRC, and we liked that one. After a quick google, turned out it's a species in both Star Trek *and* Star Wars. Which was all the more reason to name it that.
Re: DIS: DotNomic
On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 22:28 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: http://dotnomic.wikidot.com/ I don't personally have time to keep up with any forum-based nomics, but I recommend that H. Ambassador BobTHJ recognize it per Rule 2185. What about PerlNomic? Shouldn't that be recognised too? After all, it's participating in Agora at the moment... -- ais523
Re: DIS: DotNomic
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 2:10 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What about PerlNomic? Shouldn't that be recognised too? After all, it's participating in Agora at the moment... Having a forum in PerlNomic in which e could announce the recognition would probably be a first good step...
Re: DIS: DotNomic
On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 14:26 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 2:10 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What about PerlNomic? Shouldn't that be recognised too? After all, it's participating in Agora at the moment... Having a forum in PerlNomic in which e could announce the recognition would probably be a first good step... Well, in that case Agora's recognition system discriminates against non-forum-based nomics. Besides, there's chuck.DISCUSSION.discussion (IIRC), which does work as a discussion forum, it's just not accessible to non-players and seems to have broken some time while the server was down. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Dealing with the ihope issue.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 1:50 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Too late; I've already agreed to it on IRC. Changes to the parties in a public contract take effect when they're published; eir leaving the contract was published before you joined it.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Dealing with the ihope issue.
2008/7/28 Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Changes to the parties in a public contract take effect when they're published; eir leaving the contract was published before you joined it. No it wasn't. I can provide logs.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Dealing with the ihope issue.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No it wasn't. I can provide logs. Logged or not, your IRC channel isn't a Public Forum.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Dealing with the ihope issue.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And you don't have to agree to contracts in a Public Forum. Rule 2178: Changes in the text or membership of a public contract do not become effective until they are published. The contract in question claimed to be a public contract.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Dealing with the ihope issue.
On Monday 28 July 2008 03:06:35 pm Elliott Hird wrote: 2008/7/28 Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Logged or not, your IRC channel isn't a Public Forum. And you don't have to agree to contracts in a Public Forum. Resolving this probably will require a close reading of rule 2178. There would superficially appear to be a conflict in this case between its second-to-last and last paragraphs. For reference: If the text of a potential contract is published with a clear indication that the contract will be public when it forms, then it is identified as a public contract when it becomes a contract. Changes in the text or membership of a public contract do not become effective until they are published. Pavitra
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5658-5667
tusho wrote: 2008/7/28 Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]: What's that? eso-std.org's server, so named when we (me and ais523) were bashing randomly-typed names off our keyboards over IRC, and we liked that one. After a quick google, turned out it's a species in both Star Trek *and* Star Wars. Which was all the more reason to name it that. Okay, give me a shell account?
Re: DIS: DotNomic
ais523 wrote: On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 14:26 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 2:10 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What about PerlNomic? Shouldn't that be recognised too? After all, it's participating in Agora at the moment... Having a forum in PerlNomic in which e could announce the recognition would probably be a first good step... Well, in that case Agora's recognition system discriminates against non-forum-based nomics. Besides, there's chuck.DISCUSSION.discussion (IIRC), which does work as a discussion forum, it's just not accessible to non-players and seems to have broken some time while the server was down. Any active nomic has to use some form of group communication, which can reasonably be designated a forum.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Dealing with the ihope issue.
On Monday 28 July 2008 03:14:11 pm I wrote:
Resolving this probably will require a close reading of rule 2178.
There would superficially appear to be a conflict in this case
between its second-to-last and last paragraphs.
For reference:
If the text of a potential contract is published with a clear
indication that the contract will be public when it forms, then
it is identified as a public contract when it becomes a
contract.
Changes in the text or membership of a public contract do not
become effective until they are published.
It seems to me that the last paragraph has no effect unless the text in
question is a public contract, which cannot be the case unless it is a
contract, which cannot be true unless it has two parties, which in
this case requires that ihope successfully became a party to it.
Thus, I see two possible interpretations of the situation:
(1) the membership of the contract did not change; the contract
came into being as a contract with the set of parties {Sgeo, ihope}.
(2) paradox: public contract - no unpublished changes - ihope not
party - not contract - not public contract - last paragraph of 2178
does not apply - ihope's agreement to contract was effective - two
parties - contract - public contract.
At first, I suspected that there might be two copies of the contract,
one public with only Sgeo as a party and one private with both Sgeo
and ihope, but upon closer examination I believe that the rule does
not support this. (In particular, the contract did not allow for
itself to be a pledge, so with only Sgeo as party it could not be a
contract and hence not a public contract.)
Pavitra
Re: DIS: Database dumps
On Jul 28, 2008, at 1:18 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: I've configured Zenith to run nightly database dumps. The CotC DB is ~3MB, the others are both under 50K. (Don't worry about DoSing it; it's been serving ~2GB per month for a while now, due to hosting a Java version of Chrononauts after the author's site died. Is the Java Chrononaughts still up? May I join? - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr, trying to patch 1945-d
Re: DIS: Database dumps
OscarMeyr wrote: Is the Java Chrononaughts still up? May I join? http://zenith.homelinux.net/chrononauts/ No provision for network play, alas.
