Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Unanimity issue

> On 1/11/07, Michael Norrish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I hereby vote AGAINST all proposals currently up for vote. > > Which ones are those? Do I need to care? Michael.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Doing stuff

OscarMeyr wrote: On Jan 11, 2007, at 9:36 PM, Michael Slone wrote: On 1/11/07, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: I declare PRESENCE on all proposals between 4877-4892 unless doing so does not help meet quorum. I move we repeal the conditional voting rule. Prese

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Doing stuff

On Jan 11, 2007, at 9:36 PM, Michael Slone wrote: On 1/11/07, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I declare PRESENCE on all proposals between 4877-4892 unless doing so does not help meet quorum. I move we repeal the conditional voting rule. Presence isn't a vote, is it? - Benjamin Schul

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: registration and CFJs

On Jan 11, 2007, at 9:01 PM, Michael Slone wrote: On 1/11/07, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Welcome to the game, Zefram! Heck of a way to jump right in. Make yourself at home. Technically, this ought to be s#Welcome#Welcome back# ... After all, Zefram was a Fugitive from J

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix unanimity

On 1/11/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The rule we choose is the following. First select a nonprincipal ultrafilter on the natural numbers. I *hate* the ultrapower construction, because nobody's been able to actually construct a free ultrafilter. -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Yo

DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix proposal efficacy

Zefram wrote: Even after the fixes proposed for Rule Changes, it's still possible for a Proposal to be adopted with AI < 1 and take effect with Power=0. That allows anything *except* Rule Changes to be done by an unpopular Proposal. Nope, Rule 955 prevents it: If the voting index ex

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix unanimity

On 1/11/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I tried once, but according to Kelly I only said I did. Mine. -- C. Maud Image (Michael Slone) I tried once, but according to Kelly I only said I did. -- Goethe, in agora-discussion P.S. She was right.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Unanimity issue

On 1/11/07, Michael Norrish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I hereby vote AGAINST all proposals currently up for vote. Which ones are those? -- Michael Slone

DIS: Re: BUS: Doing stuff

On 1/11/07, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I declare PRESENCE on all proposals between 4877-4892 unless doing so does not help meet quorum. I move we repeal the conditional voting rule. -- Michael Slone

DIS: a sentence from rule 105

The following sentence appears in rule 105: However, a proposal cannot cause a rule to have power greater than its own. This doesn't appear to affect Murphy's elegant scam, but it does imply that Zefram's scam wouldn't work. Briefly, rule 105 says that a proposal can *g

DIS: Re: BUS: registration and CFJs

Maud wrote: Technically, this ought to be s#Welcome#Welcome back# ... After all, Zefram was a Fugitive from Justice for over nine years. And so technically, by R1437, e still has a non-zero stain. Hmm, I guess the common definition of "stain" doesn't imply cardinality, either. -Goethe

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: registration and CFJs

On 1/11/07, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Welcome to the game, Zefram! Heck of a way to jump right in. Make yourself at home. Technically, this ought to be s#Welcome#Welcome back# ... After all, Zefram was a Fugitive from Justice for over nine years. -- Michael Slone

Re: DIS: Re: Welcome to the "agora-discussion" mailing list

On Dec 26, 2006, at 3:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Maud wrote: I should mention that rule 869** can be read as requiring you to announce that you register (instead of saying that you *have* joined --- it's a minor point, but sometimes quibbling over minor points is part of the fun of nomic**

DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: switch off the fountain

OscarMeyr wrote: The Town Fountain was created through a scam. You'll have to repeal it through another scam, if you want my vote. This is a scam, it repeals a power-4 Rule with an AI 1 proposal. Works because the Great Repeals deleted a part of 105(c). It's a scam that needs a majority, t

New quorum (Was DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix unanimity)

Zefram wrote: There is a problem with the usual way quorum works, that there are situations where voting AGAINST a proposal actually makes it more likely to pass. (For example, if there have been four votes FOR and there is a quorum of five.) This isn't a bug, it's a feature. Working with d

Re: [Fwd: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto-assessing of Proposal 4876]

On Dec 18, 2006, at 10:47 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: TTttPF: Proposal: Inactivity Revisited Create a rule titled "Inactivity" with this text: A player may become active or inactive by announcement. A player may, without objection, make another player inactive. Oops, I just saw that

DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: switch off the fountain

On Jan 11, 2007, at 10:39 AM, Zefram wrote: H. Promotor, I hereby submit the following Proposal, entitled "switch off the fountain": --- WHEREAS the Town Fountain is an ugly triviality of ASCII art, unlike the fine Map of Agora, and whereas the scamming spirit of the game is adequately honoure

DIS: Re: BUS: registration and CFJs

Welcome to the game, Zefram! Heck of a way to jump right in. Make yourself at home. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr

DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix unanimity

On Jan 11, 2007, at 5:46 PM, Zefram wrote: H. Promotor, I hereby submit the following proposal, entitled "fix unanimity": --- Be it therefore resolved that Rule 955 "Determining the Will of Agora" be amended by replacing the word "Unanimity" with "aleph-0". --- ("Aleph-0" is the precise mathem

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Agoran Arms

On Jan 11, 2007, at 3:45 PM, Zefram wrote: Grey Knight wrote: The coat of arms of Agora is defined by the following blazon: Nice. I was just thinking about proposing a rule specifying symbols of the game. I noticed that the rule specifying that the name of the game is "Agora" has gone,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix unanimity

On 1/11/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Strictly, what we want for the case of zero AGAINST votes and more than zero FOR votes is the limit of 1/n as n approaches zero from above. I think that's aleph-0, but I'm not 100% sure. This does seem to match your definition of an infinite hyperrea

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity

On 1/11/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If you want to ressurect the old definition then reenact it. You can't ignore a repeal just because it's turned out to be inconvenient. We're not ignoring it. But the problem is that the repeal didn't leave us with an alternate interpretation that

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity

Zefram wrote: If you want to ressurect the old definition then reenact it. You can't ignore a repeal just because it's turned out to be inconvenient. That's not what I advocated. First, I'll note that we're not talking about the definition of Unanimity per se. It is in fact defined in R95

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix unanimity

Michael Norrish wrote: >Life would be a lot simpler if we dispensed with ratios entirely, and >framed AIs in terms of differences. Interesting. I have a concept for quorum which might interact with that idea. There is a problem with the usual way quorum works, that there are situations where vo

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix unanimity

Zefram wrote: Strictly, what we want for the case of zero AGAINST votes and more than zero FOR votes is the limit of 1/n as n approaches zero from above. I think that's aleph-0, but I'm not 100% sure. This does seem to match your definition of an infinite hyperreal. Applying the same logic to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix unanimity

Ian Kelly wrote: > And I'm not convinced that n/0 (I don't know whether >it has a name, let's call it h)is actually a hyperreal, It's not. It's undefined. That's why the Rule determining the voting index needs a special case for where there are no AGAINST votes. 0/0 is also unde

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix unanimity

On 1/11/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ian Kelly wrote: > By your argument, aleph-null should >never be used for voting index, since aleph-null is not a hyperreal >(as far as I am aware -- my understanding is that an infinite >hyperreal is defined as the i

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix unanimity

Ian Kelly wrote: > By your argument, aleph-null should >never be used for voting index, since aleph-null is not a hyperreal >(as far as I am aware -- my understanding is that an infinite >hyperreal is defined as the inverse of an infinitesimal hyperreal, >which is

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix unanimity

On 1/11/07, Zefram wrote: (Imagine if it were possibleto cast a half vote.) I've always thought this was a good idea... now if only i can come up with a plausible way to implement it.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix unanimity

On 1/11/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ian Kelly wrote: >Come to think of it, it's also more correct. A voting index of >aleph-null should properly only be used when infinitely many FOR votes >are placed, Not at all. The voting index is not inherently a cardinal. It is not a count of F

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity

Kerim Aydin wrote: >judge would be allowed to fall back on game custom and precedent, >i.e. use its old definition. Its old definition was not game custom, it was a Rule. The precedent of using that definition also does not apply, because a highly relevant aspect of the preceding situation has c

DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix unanimity

root wrote: A voting index of aleph-null should properly only be used when infinitely many FOR votes are placed, which I don't believe has ever happened. I tried once, but according to Kelly I only said I did. -G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix unanimity

Ian Kelly wrote: >Come to think of it, it's also more correct. A voting index of >aleph-null should properly only be used when infinitely many FOR votes >are placed, Not at all. The voting index is not inherently a cardinal. It is not a count of FOR votes, but (mostly) a ratio between two cardi

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity

Zefram wrote: Taral wrote: >It retains the properties it had when it was last defined, no? Certainly not. Game custom has never supported definitions outliving their repeal. The meaning of the formerly-defined term reverts to whatever it would be if the definition had never existed. In this

DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix unanimity

What do we need to introduce cardinality concepts for? For voting purposes, unanimity is much more intuitive. Come to think of it, it's also more correct. A voting index of aleph-null should properly only be used when infinitely many FOR votes are placed, which I don't believe has ever happene

Re: DIS: proto-proto: expiry of rules

Michael Norrish wrote: >How would the expiry date change in the rule was amended? With indivisible Rules as we have, I think any major change would want to extend the expiry date just as a new enactment would. Small amendments, however, such as a change of responsible officer due to repeal of an

DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix unanimity

On 1/11/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: H. Promotor, I hereby submit the following proposal, entitled "fix unanimity": --- Be it therefore resolved that Rule 955 "Determining the Will of Agora" be amended by replacing the word "Unanimity" with "aleph-0". --- ("Aleph-0" is the precise math

Re: DIS: proto-proto: expiry of rules

Zefram wrote: I have a concept for real-life national law, which I think would work well in nomic too. The idea is that, based on the principle that no society can morally bind its successors, laws should not automatically last more than a generation. Thus every law should expire twenty years a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity

Taral wrote: >It retains the properties it had when it was last defined, no? Certainly not. Game custom has never supported definitions outliving their repeal. The meaning of the formerly-defined term reverts to whatever it would be if the definition had never existed. In this case, "Unanimity"

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity

> It retains the properties it had when it was last defined, no? How could you justify that? If something loses its definition then its properties are unknown. In programming if you have a pointer pointing to an object, and you delete that object, the pointer now points to who knows what. In o

DIS: Unanimity issue

With the definition of Unanimity in question, would someone like to cast AGAINST votes as needed to prevent any of the proposals currently in their voting period from passing unanimously? I'd propose a fix to the definition, but I need to head offline now (and it's time someone else had a chance

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity

On 1/11/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 1/11/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > H. Clerk of the Courts, I hereby Call for Judgement on the statement: > Rule 955 should be interpreted such a voting index of "Unanimity" cannot > meet or exceed any numerical adoption index. > > "Unanim

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity

On 1/11/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: H. Clerk of the Courts, I hereby Call for Judgement on the statement: Rule 955 should be interpreted such a voting index of "Unanimity" cannot meet or exceed any numerical adoption index. "Unanimity" is no longer defined anywhere in the Rules, so I t

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Agoran Arms

On 1/11/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Grey Knight wrote: >The coat of arms of Agora is defined by the following blazon: Nice. I was just thinking about proposing a rule specifying symbols of the game. I noticed that the rule specifying that the name of the game is "Agora" has gone, an

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Agoran Arms

Grey Knight wrote: >The coat of arms of Agora is defined by the following blazon: Nice. I was just thinking about proposing a rule specifying symbols of the game. I noticed that the rule specifying that the name of the game is "Agora" has gone, and I thought it ought to come back. But if it doe

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Red Tape Scam

Zefram wrote: Please don't renumber Rules. It screws up the amendment numbers (though I see they're no longer formally defined). Things like amendment numbers were explicitly left to game custom as part of increasing Officers' discretion in their recordkeeping, but also in anticipation of th

DIS: Paradox resolution without retcon proposal

Zefram wrote: > In a Platonist system this wouldn't be a problem. In the Platonist model, > Judgements don't actually change the state of anything, they're just meant > to point out what the state actually is. A contradiction of Judgements > isn't a problem then: one of the purported Judgements

DIS: Re: BUS: votes on 4877-4892

Zefram wrote: Rule 106 says the eligible voters are "the active players", but I don't see anything that says when that's determined, so my interpretation is that eligibility should be determined at the time of voting. From the last paragraph of R1950:

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity

On 1/11/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: H. Clerk of the Courts, I hereby Call for Judgement on the statement: Rule 955 should be interpreted such a voting index of "Unanimity" cannot meet or exceed any numerical adoption index. "Unanimity" is no longer defined anywhere in the Rules, so I t

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Red Tape Scam

Ed Murphy wrote: >Amend the rule titled "Fantasy Rule Changes" to have number 105, Please don't renumber Rules. It screws up the amendment numbers (though I see they're no longer formally defined). -zefram

DIS: Re: BUS: two proposals relating to low AIs

Zefram wrote: H. Promotor, I hereby submit the following Proposal, entitled "hoopy": --- Be it therefore resolved that a Rule be created with title "Sass That Hoopy" and text: When the Clerk of the Courts publishes a Judgement as required by Rule 591, e must accompany the publi

Re: DIS: proto: broaden annotations

Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Expressing the contrary of a given statement is not always trivial, unless you resort to the form "The statement 'foo bar' is false". I think it is sufficiently simple, generally a matter of inserting the word "not". In this case, the statement will generally

Re: DIS: proto: broaden annotations

Ed Murphy wrote: >Expressing the contrary of a given statement is not always trivial, >unless you resort to the form "The statement 'foo bar' is false". I think it is sufficiently simple, generally a matter of inserting the word "not". >require the rule to be annotated with the Statement and Judg

Re: DIS: proto: broaden annotations

Zefram wrote: The Judge of any CFJ, the Statement of which alleges that a Rule should be interpreted in a certain way, which is judged TRUE or FALSE, may, at eir discretion, issue an Order requiring the Rulekeepor to annotate the Rule in question accordingly. If

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: registration and CFJs

Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: YAFI, YGI. What does that expand to? "You asked for it, you got it". The Clerk of the Courts may, without objection, unlink one or more of the linked CFJs from the others by announcement. If e unlinks more than one as a set, then those CFJs

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 4877-4892

Sherlock wrote: 4879 | Dishonor Rolls, redux | Murphy| 1 | 16Dec06 | O I love this... FOR I feel obligated to remind folks that I didn't write this rule, just proposed to patch it in from a previously adopted proposal that accidentally didn't have its full intended effect. 4882

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: votes on 4877-4892

Jonathan Fry wrote: >I thought voting power was set at the beginning of the week (so you >wouldn't have any votes on these proposals), but I can't seem to find >that in the ruleset any longer. Did that requirement go away? Looks like it. The phrase "voting limit" appears only in Rule 1950, which

DIS: Re: BUS: votes on 4877-4892

Zefram wrote: > On the Proposals listed below I vote thus: I thought voting power was set at the beginning of the week (so you wouldn't have any votes on these proposals), but I can't seem to find that in the ruleset any longer. Did that requirement go away? Sherlock __

DIS: proto: broaden annotations

Proto-proposal: --- Amend rule 789 "Orders to Annotate Rules" by replacing the paragraph that begins "The Judge of any CFJ" with: The Judge of any CFJ, the Statement of which alleges that a Rule should be interpreted in a certain way, which is judged TRUE or FALSE, may, at

DIS: proto-proto: expiry of rules

I have a concept for real-life national law, which I think would work well in nomic too. The idea is that, based on the principle that no society can morally bind its successors, laws should not automatically last more than a generation. Thus every law should expire twenty years after enactment,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: registration and CFJs

Ed Murphy wrote: >YAFI, YGI. What does that expand to? > The Clerk of the Courts may, without objection, unlink one or > more of the linked CFJs from the others by announcement. If e > unlinks more than one as a set, then those CFJs remain linked > to each other. There are i