On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 14:31 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
Unless you plan on buying it, I wish you wouldn't. That vote is now
going to count toward quorum, regardless of whether anyone ends up
directing it or not.
Well, given that I didn't want proposal 5707 to fail quorum, it was a
sensible action
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 22:18 -0400, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
I just realized that root would have qualified for the patent title
Groovy (for winning three different ways), if we hadn't repealed it
prematurely. Is it worth bringing back?
Ah, yes please. I've been going for that one for months
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
Goethe wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
I recuse Goethe from CFJ 2148. I change Goethe to supine.
?which one was that? I sit up.
That was the equity case on tusho creating CFJs just so their ID numbers
could be harvested.
Oh shoot,
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
The
win conditions of Agora have been developed over time and cause all
sorts of parts of the game to open up which would otherwise be
irrelevant.
Yah, keep going, you've almost unlocked the first bonus action.
You'll need it against the next Boss scam. -G.
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 15:44, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ais523 wrote:
I submit the following arguments on the CFJs which Murphy's website shows
will be assigned the numbers 2203-2205:
An excerpt from Rule 2172:
{{{
The option selected shall be considered to be clearly
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 07:22 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
So we are saying that SELL votes aren't valid unless the VM is
published during the voting period on which they are cast? That is
somewhat ridiculous, isn't it?
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 11:55 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
[Would require an unambiguous specification of identity so that I am
a current player sent anonymously wouldn't work. Also generalizes to
when message was sent instead of specifying the date stamp, which
follows current precedent (the
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 17:19 +0100, Zefram wrote:
ais523 wrote:
Date: 30 June 1993 00:04:30 +1200
It's a pity the Truthfulness rule is gone. This would have been a
great CFJ.
Just in case people argue about which header is correct, there's an
X-Date-Stamp header saying the same thing. That
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 17:25 +0100, Zefram wrote:
ais523 wrote:
X-Date-Stamp header saying the same thing. That one's definitely a date
stamp!
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Well, I think it's pretty uncontroversially a date stamp, albeit one
with the wrong date on. The scam itself fails for
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My point is not that it's true now and needs a fix (though a clarification
is always useful) my point is that it's ridiculous to interpret the *current*
rule as excluding readily-available information (as long as it's
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 12:30 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My point is not that it's true now and needs a fix (though a clarification
is always useful) my point is that it's ridiculous to interpret the
*current*
rule as
ais523 wrote:
Well, I think it's pretty uncontroversially a date stamp,
I controvert it. It was not stamped on the message, in the usual meaning
of the term. It was not added as part of a regular process, nor in a
manner that would be expected to normally give an accurate record of
the current
On 1 Jul 2008, at 01:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I CFJ on the statement: {This CFJ was initiated or will be
initiated at midnight, 1 July 2008.}
Oh my, Murphy, you're a bit late with this one...
Wooble wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My point is not that it's true now and needs a fix (though a clarification
is always useful) my point is that it's ridiculous to interpret the *current*
rule as excluding readily-available information (as long
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 09:42 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
Wooble wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My point is not that it's true now and needs a fix (though a clarification
is always useful) my point is that it's ridiculous to interpret the
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 12:30 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My point is not that it's true now and needs a fix (though a clarification
is always useful) my point is that it's ridiculous to
Ian Kelly wrote:
Thorny part: the time of day is not part of the date
It is if you're dealing with timezones. Our date stamps have resolution
finer than one day; I see no contradiction here.
-zefram
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
Thorny part: the time of day is not part of the date
It is if you're dealing with timezones. Our date stamps have resolution
finer than one day; I see no contradiction here.
Agora has no time zones. Days begin
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 10:55 AM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with Wooble that SELL (5VP - AGAINST) probably works, due to it
being an abbreviation whose expansion is well-known and repeatedly
published. (Note, however, that it is not certain that the Assessor
understood it
On 2 Oct 2008, at 18:01, comex wrote:
I wish ehird had tried that. E would have sent the message before
eir birth.
I asked ais523 about that, and probably if that kind of time-travel
did work,
it'd just be an email from a non-person.
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 11:02 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
You know, it seems to me that your interpretation of it should more
plausibly be written SELL (5VP - AGAINST x 3).
Well, does that allow the buying of 1 vote or 3? That isn't at all clear
from that. A conditional vote that changes number
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 10:55 AM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend, with 2 support, to appeal CFJ 2203. The judgement looked
reasonable at the time, but various doubts have come up since which I
think need looking at. Rule 754 is probably the best argument as to what
is allowed, because
comex wrote:
I wish ehird had tried that. E would have sent the message before eir birth.
Woo, we have a player younger than the game? Now Agora's really grown up.
-zefram
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:05 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 11:02 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
You know, it seems to me that your interpretation of it should more
plausibly be written SELL (5VP - AGAINST x 3).
Well, does that allow the buying of 1 vote or 3? That isn't at
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, comex wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Information is *not* merely the words in the message, it is something
that informs. If you publish (during the voting period) a clear and
adequate reference to something that may be outside
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 09:49 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
If, as you claim, you don't allow *any* references to outside material,
you'd have to publish a dictionary every voting period. And a grammar
guide. And maybe a kindergarten curriculum. Clearly absurd
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
Rule 754 explicitly allows knowledge of standard English, and of the
rules. It doesn't allow knowledge of contract-defined terms. By the same
an explicit MAY implies MAY NOT in all other cases that we have in the
rules (via the definition of regulation), I
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 10:12 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
Rule 754 explicitly allows knowledge of standard English, and of the
rules. It doesn't allow knowledge of contract-defined terms. By the same
an explicit MAY implies MAY NOT in all other cases that we
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And was the SLR published within every voting period? Otherwise by your
rules you can't refer to it. -Goethe
Note that the Rulekeepor's obligation to post the SLR weekly would be
satisfied if e published, for example, on
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 10:55 AM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend, with 2 support, to appeal CFJ 2203. The judgement looked
reasonable at the time, but various doubts have come up since which I
think need looking at. Rule 754 is probably the best
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:09 AM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:05 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 11:02 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
You know, it seems to me that your interpretation of it should more
plausibly be written SELL (5VP - AGAINST x 3).
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:15 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rule 754 is more powerful than rule 2127, and they contradict each
other. Rule 754 wins.
hmm..
Rule 683 is more powerful than rule 2127, and they contradict each
other (because R683 requires that the voter clearly identify which
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ais523 wrote:
Well, I think it's pretty uncontroversially a date stamp,
I controvert it. It was not stamped on the message, in the usual meaning
of the term. It was not added as part of a regular process, nor in a
manner that
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 10:12 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
Rule 754 explicitly allows knowledge of standard English, and of the
rules. It doesn't allow knowledge of contract-defined terms. By the same
an explicit MAY implies MAY
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:22 AM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:15 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rule 754 is more powerful than rule 2127, and they contradict each
other. Rule 754 wins.
hmm..
Rule 683 is more powerful than rule 2127, and they contradict each
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 10:26 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
If you were arguing that a vote was unclear because it was unclear or
ambiguous in the way it used an abbreviation, all well and good. But I'm not
going to support the idea that an abbreviation is automatically forbidden
because an
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, comex wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:15 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rule 754 is more powerful than rule 2127, and they contradict each
other. Rule 754 wins.
hmm..
Rule 683 is more powerful than rule 2127, and they contradict each
other (because R683 requires
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
BobTHJ voted SELL (5VP - AGAINST) x 5. This amounted to 5 votes of
SELL (5VP - AGAINST), which resulted in 5 sets of conditional votes,
each set resolving to (endorse filler x 5 / AGAINST x 1); and 5
corresponding sell tickets.
Where are you finding
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 10:38 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
BobTHJ voted SELL (5VP - AGAINST) x 5. This amounted to 5 votes of
SELL (5VP - AGAINST), which resulted in 5 sets of conditional votes,
each set resolving to (endorse filler x 5 / AGAINST x 1); and 5
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 10:26 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
If you were arguing that a vote was unclear because it was unclear or
ambiguous in the way it used an abbreviation, all well and good. But I'm not
going to support the idea that an abbreviation is
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
comex wrote:
I wish ehird had tried that. E would have sent the message before eir birth.
Woo, we have a player younger than the game? Now Agora's really grown up.
When I was your age, we didn't have fancy online nomics. We had
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 10:47 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 10:26 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
If you were arguing that a vote was unclear because it was unclear or
ambiguous in the way it used an abbreviation, all well and good. But I'm
On 2 Oct 2008, at 18:08, Zefram wrote:
comex wrote:
I wish ehird had tried that. E would have sent the message before
eir birth.
Woo, we have a player younger than the game? Now Agora's really
grown up.
-zefram
I seem to recall ihope is 15, I don't know if e's older or younger
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where are you finding this? The vote I find is:
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SELL(5VP) x5
There's certainly no Against. Without the AGAINST (versus for example a
5xAGAINST) missing it's unclear to me whether the x5
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:55 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Note, however, that it is not certain that the Assessor
understood it correctly; Murphy recently admitted to treating unfilled
tickets as no-vote rather than PRESENT.)
I don't believe there's any reason from a reading of the
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 13:59 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:55 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Note, however, that it is not certain that the Assessor
understood it correctly; Murphy recently admitted to treating unfilled
tickets as no-vote rather than PRESENT.)
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where are you finding this? The vote I find is:
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SELL(5VP) x5
There's certainly no Against. Without the AGAINST (versus for example a
5xAGAINST)
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 11:05 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
This version:
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-September/013955.html
has Section 11 votes so that a Sell Ticket is a ticket to vote up to one's
voting power; under that section more than one ticket is
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 10:26 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
If you were arguing that a vote was unclear because it was unclear or
ambiguous in the way it used an abbreviation, all well and good. But I'm
not
going to
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 11:05 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
This version:
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-September/013955.html
has Section 11 votes so that a Sell Ticket is a ticket to vote up to one's
voting power; under
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did I miss an amendement?
This version:
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-September/013955.html
has Section 11 votes so that a Sell Ticket is a ticket to vote up to one's
voting power;
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 11:15 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Just a followup ais523, would you agree with the following statement?
For the purposes of R2127, if information published in the same message
as a conditional vote and/or directly associated with a conditional vote
contains a clear
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 11:25 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Okay then, here's my question. A section 13 is still a (conditional)
offer to vote in a certain way on an agoran decision (Endorse or
otherwise). As such, don't section 13 tickets still fall under the
section 11's default requirement that
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did I miss an amendement?
This version:
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-September/013955.html
has Section 11 votes so that a Sell Ticket is a
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:35 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
where the line was drawn. Does anyone know why rule 2127 was created in
the first place? I'm wondering if the bar was intentionally set high to
discourage that sort of scam.
The archives show that Goethe originally proposed it
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
Does anyone know why rule 2127 was created in
the first place? I'm wondering if the bar was intentionally set high to
discourage that sort of scam.
I wrote it, because I thought it would be fun to allow just the sort
of activity that's now going on (sell
I've entered this into the CotC DB using the timestamp from the
Received: from yzma.clarkk.net ... by yzma.clarkk.net ...
header. If another timestamp would be more appropriate, then I'd
appreciate an explanation from the Distributor and/or another
mail guru (I am not one myself).
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:35 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
where the line was drawn. Does anyone know why rule 2127 was created in
the first place? I'm wondering if the bar was intentionally set high to
discourage that sort of scam.
The
On 2 Oct 2008, at 19:58, Ed Murphy wrote:
I've entered this into the CotC DB using the timestamp from the
Received: from yzma.clarkk.net ... by yzma.clarkk.net ...
header. If another timestamp would be more appropriate, then I'd
appreciate an explanation from the Distributor and/or another
Goethe wrote:
Proto: Conditional clarity
Amend Rule 2127 by replacing the text:
from information published within the voting period.
with:
from adequate information that (a) is clearly
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've entered this into the CotC DB using the timestamp from the
Received: from yzma.clarkk.net ... by yzma.clarkk.net ...
header. If another timestamp would be more appropriate, then I'd
appreciate an explanation from the
Goethe wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote:
from adequate information that (a) is clearly identified in the
voting message and (b) is or will be reasonably and readily available
to and interpretable by any player at all times between the end of
the voting period
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 12:27 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
I think it should be evaluated at the time of resolution, to ensure
that e.g. 6001: FOR if 6000 passed works. (Gets messy if the
resolution of 6000 is accidentally invalid, but I can't think of a
good way around that. If the resolution of
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
I think it should be evaluated at the time of resolution, to ensure
that e.g. 6001: FOR if 6000 passed works. (Gets messy if the
resolution of 6000 is accidentally invalid, but I can't think of a
good way around that. If the resolution of 6000 is
comex wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not least because you, er, didn't actually send the message in 1993.
I wish ehird had tried that. E would have sent the message before eir birth.
Dammit, now you're making me feel old. (I was in college in
On 30 Sep 2008, at 18:02, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 30 Sep 2008, at 16:57, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
This distribution of proposals 5727-5730 initiates the Agoran
Decisions on whether to adopt them. The eligible voters for ordinary
proposals are the active players, the eligible voters
I vote as follows:
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 11:23, The PerlNomic Partnership
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE
5708 O 1 1.0 comex none
AGAINST x 2
5709 D 1 2.0 Murphy Form 2126-EZ
AGAINST
5710 D 3 3.0 Murphy Pragmatic rights
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:25, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 11:05 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
This version:
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-September/013955.html
has Section 11 votes so that a
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 4:36 PM, ehird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are these valid?
It's impossible to cast a negative number of votes. Other than that,
the ones that aren't in excess of your voting limit would appear to be
valid.
-root
Rule 208/7 (Power=3)
Resolving Agoran decisions
The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve
it by announcement, indicating the option selected by Agora.
...
This rule takes precedence over any rule that would provide
another mechanism by which an
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 5:44 PM, ehird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FOR*2 + FOR*-1 = FOR*1
It's not algebra. You wrote FOR*2, FOR*-1, which is shorthand for
I cast 2 votes FOR, then I cast -1 vote FOR. The first half of that
is sensible, the second is not.
-root
71 matches
Mail list logo
