I didn’t find the Politics game particularly fun to play
On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 at 02:07, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> Yeah, I noticed that earlier in the week but didn't get around to stopping
> you. Win by apathy indeed. :P
>
> -twg
>
> Original Message
> On 25 Feb 2019, 00:01, D.
Missing obvious kind of extreme case:
{
Power 3: Players can Declare Quanging by announcement, unless another rule
contains the word “Walruses”.
Power 1: Walruses are a currency tracked by the Zoologist. [...]
}
On Sun, 24 Feb 2019, Gaelan Steele wrote:
Some thought experiments:
{
Power 3:
I’m all for more meta-shenanigans—it’s a game about changing the rules, and
it’s only right to change the rules about changing the rules. However, I am
with ais523 that we should have a power restriction.
Also, if this is a real proposal, you might want to just avoid the power
debate. IMO, put
I mean, in practice that just means that voting against a proposal would be
something you do very not-lightly. We’d end up with a lot of negotiation and
politicking. In practice, splits would be fairly rare.
Gaelan
> On Feb 24, 2019, at 3:20 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> This reminds me of a c
Some thought experiments:
{
Power 3: Players can Declare Quanging by announcement, unless another rule
contains the text “Players can’t Declare Quanging.”
Power 1: Players can’t Declare Quanging.
}
{
Power 3: Players can Declare Quanging by announcement, unless another rule
describes a circumst
On Mon, 2019-02-25 at 01:11 +, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> What about just requiring Agoran Consent? Seems like the obvious way
> to protect something that could be useful or dangerous depending on
> who's using it.
Historically, we've restricted this sort of screwing with proposals to
proposal
What about just requiring Agoran Consent? Seems like the obvious way to protect
something that could be useful or dangerous depending on who's using it.
-twg
Original Message
On 25 Feb 2019, 01:08, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> It seems to me that this would cause a heap of complica
Yeah, I noticed that earlier in the week but didn't get around to stopping you.
Win by apathy indeed. :P
-twg
Original Message
On 25 Feb 2019, 00:01, D. Margaux wrote:
> I pay 24 balloons to win the game (legitimately this time).
>
> H. Clork: Unless I misread the rules or bot
It seems to me that this would cause a heap of complications in writing
proposals, which would need to include safeguards against disastrous
partial applications. For example, a proposal that splits an important
rule into two parts, by amending the original and creating a new one,
could easily
On Sun, 24 Feb 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Please look at the Caller's "two assumptions" arguments in CFJ 1104, I was
on the fence when this conversation started, but reading those arguments is
what convinced me: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1104
Those arguments explicitly co
I was mildly interested, but I was deterred from participation by the early
scam.
--
Trigon
On Sun, Feb 24, 2019, 17:06 Kerim Aydin
> Funnily enough, the last time this was implemented, the same sort of thing
> happened: several people said "this sounds cool", then almost no one played
> and the
Funnily enough, the last time this was implemented, the same sort of thing
happened: several people said "this sounds cool", then almost no one played
and the winner was effectively unopposed. (for me personally, the rules
sounded worth trying and are well-written, I just didn't get around to
t
(another from Murphy)
Forwarded Message
Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 12:09:41 -0800
From: Edward Murphy
To: Kerim Aydin
G. wrote:
But if you really want it, please take it out of the wins at this point.
How about a new Patent T
Murphy's thread reply, meant to go to discussion I think.
Forwarded Message
Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 12:02:17 -0800
From: Edward Murphy
To: Kerim Aydin
G. wrote:
On 2/24/2019 10:11 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
> The ultimate point is that t
This reminds me of a concept I ran across while reading an essay about
Nomic one time called Fork World, where the guiding principle of play is
"no coercion". In Fork World, the group of players who vote against each
rule change and the group of players who vote for are sent to their own,
non-i
> On Feb 24, 2019, at 1:40 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> There's an entirely-independent protection worth considering, in R2140 -
> even if a higher-powered rule defers to a lower powered-one, if the lower-
> powered one then makes use of that deference to "set or modify a substantive
> aspect" o
On 2/24/2019 10:11 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
> The ultimate point is that the CFJ doesn’t consider the
differencesbetween > the situation where ONE rule claims priority/deference
to the other and
> the other is silent, versus when BOTH rules give INCONSISTENT
> priority/deference answers, versus
> On Feb 24, 2019, at 1:16 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> What's missing from this analysis, in my view, is that it's not purely A>B,
> it's actually "A>B about fact P". So if two rules say different things
> about P, the two rules can wholly agree, via an explicit
> precedence/deference handshak
> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:51 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> Can you give me any example of a pair where R1030 would block deference from
>> a high power to a low power from working? The problem I'm having is that
>> your reading preven
On 2/24/2019 9:47 AM, D. Margaux wrote:>
> The mirror image assumption is partly wrong, in my opinion, and I don't
> think that CFJ adequately considers why.
>
> For rules A and B, let:
>
> “A > B” mean A claims precedence to B;
> “A < B” mean that A defers to B; and
> “A = B” mean that A is sil
> On Feb 24, 2019, at 12:47 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
>
> The mirror image assumption is partly wrong, in my opinion, and I don't think
> that CFJ adequately considers why.
>
> For rules A and B, let:
>
> “A > B” mean A claims precedence to B;
> “A < B” mean that A defers to B; and
> “A = B
The mirror image assumption is partly wrong, in my opinion, and I don't think
that CFJ adequately considers why.
For rules A and B, let:
“A > B” mean A claims precedence to B;
“A < B” mean that A defers to B; and
“A = B” mean that A is silent about its deference or priority relationship to B.
On 2/24/2019 8:51 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
>> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> Can you give me any example of a pair where R1030 would block deference
>> from a high power to a low power from working? The problem I'm having is
>> that your reading prevents R1030 from working
> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Can you give me any example of a pair where R1030 would block deference from
> a high power to a low power from working? The problem I'm having is that
> your reading prevents R1030 from working at all by defining R1030
> "deference" as s
CuddleBeam's reading is exactly my intended one - the language is
precisely worded to be triggered by the "except as prohibited by other
rules" in the first part of R106, thus doing an end-run around the latter
R106 clause with a power-1 rule.
But only if we hold the position that "except as pr
Can you give me any example of a pair where R1030 would block deference from
a high power to a low power from working? The problem I'm having is that
your reading prevents R1030 from working at all by defining R1030
"deference" as something that never happens.
On 2/24/2019 5:54 AM, D. Margaux
> On Feb 23, 2019, at 9:06 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>> On 2/22/2019 8:06 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>> I think the "Except as prohibited by other rules" is a condition, and
>> _possibly_ also a deference (it depends on exactly what deference means).
>
> I don't think there should be a subs
That actually doesn't serve as protection, ais523.
106 is about proposals not having effects altogether, this is about the
proposal still passing and doing things, yet it's *text* that has fuckery
applied to it. (And proposals are more than just its effect text.)
>Vetoed provisions in a proposal
Hey, this is some scary shit man.
> " The Comptroller CAN, by announcement, veto the individual provisions in
a proposal during the voting period of a Decision to adopt the proposal."
Couldn't you just veto... Everything? Sure, you are vetoing individual
provisionsSSS, but you could veto every sin
29 matches
Mail list logo
