On Mar 13, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
== CFJ 2412
==
[snip]
So how does that translate for SHALL-CAN?
Gratuitous addition:
While we've found that SHALL - CAN, we haven't found
It seems to me that having an election period for one candidate is an
unnecessary burden on the IADoP and Agora. So:
AI = 2, II = 1, title = Single Candidate election
Amend R2154 by inserting the following paragraph before the last
paragraph:
If at any time during the decision period
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Benjamin Schultz ke...@verizon.net wrote:
It seems to me that having an election period for one candidate is an
unnecessary burden on the IADoP and Agora. So:
AI = 2, II = 1, title = Single Candidate election
Amend R2154 by inserting the following paragraph
On Mar 15, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Benjamin Schultz
ke...@verizon.net wrote:
It seems to me that having an election period for one candidate is an
unnecessary burden on the IADoP and Agora. So:
AI = 2, II = 1, title = Single Candidate
OscarMeyr wrote:
It seems to me (based on a dusty recollection of formal logic) that
CANNOT - SHALL NOT, given that SHALL - CAN.
No, because SHALL NOT and SHALL are not mutually exclusive. For instance,
it is not true that Hillary Rodham Clinton SHALL NOT register; but it is
also not true that
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
Already in R107, although it's pragmatic, not platonic.
So it is in there.
Before it was moved there, there was no obligation to initiate an
Agoran Decision for such elections at all, which I believe it how it
should be.
Any suggestions for
Goethe wrote:
I submit the following proposal, No choice, no vote AI-3:
[snip]
4) If there are no valid options for the Decision, instead of
initiating the Decision, the IADoP SHALL, in place of initiating
the decision, announce this fact, ending the election. If
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, Alexander Smith wrote:
Goethe wrote:
I submit the following proposal, No choice, no vote AI-3:
[snip]
4) If there are no valid options for the Decision, instead of
initiating the Decision, the IADoP SHALL, in place of initiating
the decision,
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
[This would have blocked e.g. comex's change the proposal text at the
last second scam. While that specific bug has been fixed, this
elevates the fix to prevent such scams generally
NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE
6140 D 1 2.0 Goethe reward contest activity
FOR
6141 D 1 3.0 coppro Fix 754
FOR
6142 D 1 3.0 coppro Better SHOULD fix
PRESENT
6143 D 0 2.0 Tiger Subsidy Anarchy
FOR
6144 D 1 3.0 Wooble Faster
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
[This would have blocked e.g. comex's change the proposal text at the
last second scam. While that specific bug has been fixed, this
elevates the fix to prevent such scams generally
I vote the following way, on each proposal a number of times equal to
my voting limit on that proposal
NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE
6140 D 1 2.0 Goethe reward contest activity
FOR
6141 D 1 3.0 coppro Fix 754
FOR
6143 D 0 2.0 Tiger Subsidy
2009/3/15 ais...@normish.org:
As permitted by the rule created by proposal 6130, I cause
Rule 2223 (Win by Junta) to amend itself to change its text
to Any non-player partnership whose basis contains no other
members but ais523, comex, Goethe, or coppro (but need not
necessarily contain all
Yally wrote:
6147 O 1 1.0 coppro Report Accessibility
AGAINST
Ineffective, your caste is still Savage.
Dvorak Herring wrote:
6147 O 1 1.0 coppro Report Accessibility
AGAINST
Ineffective, your caste is still Savage.
Pavitra wrote:
6149 D 1 2.0 ais523 Simpler Notes
PRESENT, how is this simpler?
IIRC it replaces Keys (modifying what you earn) with Transposition
(modifying what you've already earned). I don't remember what the
other substantive changes are.
ehird wrote:
6147 O 1 1.0 coppro        Report Accessibility
AGAINST
Sure enough, invalid; your caste is Epsilon and you have 5 rests.
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
The ambassador is now gone thanks to the anarchist, but there are
still rules that define things as his responsibility. How is this
handled?
One theory is that we have to use a common, dictionary definition of
ambassador. Would anyone who is a
Tiger wrote:
6147 O 1 1.0 coppro Report Accessibility
FOR
Invalid, your caste is Savage. Also, to reduce the risk of
transcription errors, please say no vote instead of snipping
proposals from the quoted material (as you did with 6142).
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
As permitted by the rule created by Proposal 6130, I cause Rule 2223
(Win by Junta) to amend itself by appending this paragraph:
This fails because it is unclear whether this is
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
Tiger wrote:
6147 O 1 1.0 coppro Report Accessibility
FOR
Invalid, your caste is Savage. Also, to reduce the risk of
transcription errors, please say no vote instead of snipping
proposals from the quoted material (as you did with 6142).
Also, to reduce the risk of
transcription errors, please say no vote instead of snipping
proposals from the quoted material (as you did with 6142).
Will do.
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
I nominate myself for Assessor.
Note: I will be out of town for 5 days starting just before this
nomination period ends; delays in starting any resulting election
are not due to favoritism. -Goethe.
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I end the voting period for the Conductor election decision.
Votes for comex: coppro, Yally, Pavitra, OscarMeyr.
Option selected: comex.
comex is installed as Conductor.
I'll publish a proto-report as soon as
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
A win announcement is not required for a Win by Junta; instead, the
winning condition is satisfied as soon as the rule comes to contain
the dictatorship text. Note that this means Murphy did not win
because, at the time the rule came to contain that
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
This is a win announcement stating that Murphy, Goethe, and OscarMeyr
satisfy the Winning Condition of Dictatorship.
Goethe
Heh. I suppose an agreement not to reveal a certain scam isn't
necessarily unique.
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Is it that clear cut that the particular win rule works in the instant
only? I generally find When a rule comes to... to be pretty close to
When it has come to pass that... which lasts as long as the text is in
the
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
I spend C F# in Sgeo's possession to destroy one Rest in Taral's
possession.
Interesting. But counter-argument: as the word 'spend' is not
explicitly defined, we use the ordinary-language definition which
strongly implies
Goethe wrote:
How did all these folks get down to Savage, I thought the win reset
put all first-class players to epsilon? -G.
*looks* Damn, you're right - R2134 resets everyone's caste, not just
the winner's. For my own later reference, here are the votes affected
in the current batch;
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Is it that clear cut that the particular win rule works in the instant
only? I generally find When a rule comes to... to be pretty close to
When it has come to pass that... which
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
CFJ: Spent assets are destroyed, unless they are specified as being
transferred to a different owner than their previous owner.
It might be worse than this. The rules in various places say players
CAN spend, but never how or with what mechanism. By
Ed Murphy wrote:
Yally wrote:
6147 O 1 1.0 coppro Report Accessibility
AGAINST
Ineffective, your caste is still Savage.
According to the most recent report issued by the Grand Poobah, only
ais523 has a caste of Savage, and I can't recall reading anything in the
interim that
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Yally wrote:
6147 O 1 1.0 coppro Report Accessibility
AGAINST
Ineffective, your caste is still Savage.
According to the most recent report issued by the Grand Poobah, only
ais523 has
comex wrote:
Amend Rule 2223 (Win by Junta) by replacing:
When a rule comes to state that one or more persons CAN cause it
to make arbitrary rule changes by announcement, all those
persons satisfy the Winning Condition of Dictatorship.
with:
Upon a win
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Benjamin Schultz ke...@verizon.net wrote:
While we've found that SHALL - CAN, we haven't found that SHALL NOT -
CANNOT. In fact, accepting that SHALL NOT - CANNOT would probably
break a lot of things.
It seems to me (based on a dusty recollection of formal
Ed Murphy wrote:
comex wrote:
Amend Rule 2223 (Win by Junta) by replacing:
When a rule comes to state that one or more persons CAN cause it
to make arbitrary rule changes by announcement, all those
persons satisfy the Winning Condition of Dictatorship.
with:
Sean Hunt wrote:
I join the Vote Market.
I intend, without three objections, to amend the Vote Market as follows
in four days:
{{
Change section 2 to read
{The Broker is responsible for maintaining the Vote Market. The Broker
is coppro.}
}}
Hrm, I forgot another amendment. And... oh,
On 2009-03-16, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
I join the Vote Market.
It does not exist
I intend, without three objections, to amend the Vote Market as follows
in four days:
{{
Change section 2 to read
{The Broker is responsible for maintaining the Vote Market. The Broker
is
I venture the following proposal, titled Agora Corporation, with
adoption index 2:
{Create a rule, titled Agora Corporation, with power 2:
{There is a person known as Agora Corporation. Agora Corporation
consists of a text, and CAN act as its text allows. Agora
Corporation's text can also modify
Warrigal wrote:
I venture the following proposal, titled Agora Corporation, with
adoption index 2:
{Create a rule, titled Agora Corporation, with power 2:
{There is a person known as Agora Corporation. Agora Corporation
consists of a text, and CAN act as its text allows. Agora
The point?
On 2009-03-16, Warrigal ihope12...@gmail.com wrote:
I venture the following proposal, titled Agora Corporation, with
adoption index 2:
{Create a rule, titled Agora Corporation, with power 2:
{There is a person known as Agora Corporation. Agora Corporation
consists of a text, and
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
The provision about rests is unnecessary; as the Agora Corporation is a
second-class person.
Indeed. Let's make it Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the
voting limit of Agora Corporation on an ordinary decision is 8, if
Warrigal wrote:
The negation of SHALL is NEED NOT, not SHALL NOT. Not that NEED NOT is
actually defined by MMI.
To preserve the literalness of the NOT phrases, it should be MAY NOT.
That's confusing though.
Perhaps... MAY not? MAY OR MAY NOT? MAY foo or not?
bah.
I suspect we need it rarely
43 matches
Mail list logo
