Michael Slone wrote:--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
(Why do I think I just got another entry in Maud's rotating quotes file?)
-- OscarMeyr, in agora-discussion
I love Maud's rotating quotes, they give me something extra to look
forward each day
Eris wrote:
On 5/7/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In an earlier draft, I limited the capacity to flip certain switches
to certain entities. I decided that people would complain about that,
so I changed it to the current version, where people can but may not
flip certain switches.
On 5/7/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In an earlier draft, I limited the capacity to flip certain switches
to certain entities. I decided that people would complain about that,
so I changed it to the current version, where people can but may not
flip certain switches.
Create a Ru
On 5/8/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Each trinket has a switch for owner, with states nobody and all
entities. The owner switch of a trinket cannot be flipped
except by the publication of a valid Notice of Transfer.
1. I hate this terminology. It's hard to dete
On 5/7/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Never used within the range of the current mailing list archives (back
to 2002-11-03). On 2002-11-26 you proposed its repeal, on the basis
that it hadn't been used in recent memory. It was eventually repealed
on 2005-05-15.
On 18 July 2001, Murphy
On 5/7/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So any entity can flip any switch?
In an earlier draft, I limited the capacity to flip certain switches
to certain entities. I decided that people would complain about that,
so I changed it to the current version, where people can but may not
flip c
Ed Murphy wrote:
>What about only charging for proposals with AI < 2?
That's conceptually interesting. It fits in with my general plan of
separating undemocratic Ordinary proposals from a purer democratic system.
The charging would still constitute an artificial scarcity, of course,
but restricte
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>On May 7, 2007, at 1:30 PM, Zefram wrote:
>>Proposal distribution is not a scarce resource.
>
>No, but proposal entry and distribution is.
Eh? What do you mean by "proposal entry"? I don't see any scarcity
around here.
-zefram
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>Since I started playing, I don't remember the Guillotine having been
>used. When was it last used?
Never used within the range of the current mailing list archives (back
to 2002-11-03). On 2002-11-26 you proposed its repeal, on the basis
that it hadn't been used in rec
On May 7, 2007, at 4:45 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Zefram wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
If it costs something "tangible" to get a proposal distributed,
Proposal distribution is not a scarce resource. I'm opposed to
creating
artificial scarcity here. Your support concept wouldn't offend in
that
wa
Zefram wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
If it costs something "tangible" to get a proposal distributed,
Proposal distribution is not a scarce resource. I'm opposed to creating
artificial scarcity here. Your support concept wouldn't offend in that
way, but it sounds like quite a lot of extra work f
On May 7, 2007, at 1:30 PM, Zefram wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
If it costs something "tangible" to get a proposal distributed,
Proposal distribution is not a scarce resource.
No, but proposal entry and distribution is.
(Why do I think I just got another entry in Maud's rotating quotes
file
On May 7, 2007, at 12:33 PM, Zefram wrote:
Finally, the clause "right to have it voted on" is troubling. Is
it "voted on" if a veto or guillotine ends the voting period?
With the present Speaker's Veto, an identical (except for AI) proposal
will be voted on the next week, and won't be subject
On May 7, 2007, at 8:13 AM, Zefram wrote:
I hereby submit the following proposal, titled "precedence takes
precedence", and set its AI to 4:
{{{
Change the Power of rule 1482 to 4.
[At Power=3, R1482 doesn't work properly in the Power>=3 region,
because
a Power=3 rule can take precedence o
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>If it costs something "tangible" to get a proposal distributed,
Proposal distribution is not a scarce resource. I'm opposed to creating
artificial scarcity here. Your support concept wouldn't offend in that
way, but it sounds like quite a lot of extra work for very little ben
Maud wrote:
On 5/7/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This takes care of "what if no state is mentioned first?" (e.g. "the
values are the players"), but you should also state that null is a
possible state of any switch in this situation.
It would be simpler to delete ``possible''. A de
Zefram wrote:
> > I personally think we should be more restrictive about free proposing,
> > people (in general) have gotten out of the habit of proto-ing.
>
> I don't see the connection here.
If it costs something "tangible" to get a proposal distributed,
you don't pay that cost for a first dra
Michael Slone wrote:
> An entity flips a switch to some state by announcement.
>
>Mechanism implies capacity.
So any entity can flip any switch?
>What is the current version number of rule 478? I'm working from
>version 16.
It's now at 17. Last amended by P4939.
-zefram
On 5/7/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's permission. What about capacity to flip switches?
That's covered later in the rule:
An entity flips a switch to some state by announcement.
Mechanism implies capacity.
>Amend rule 478 (Fora) by replacing the text reading:
...
>
On 5/7/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This takes care of "what if no state is mentioned first?" (e.g. "the
values are the players"), but you should also state that null is a
possible state of any switch in this situation.
It would be simpler to delete ``possible''. A default state is
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>I personally think we should be more restrictive about free proposing,
>people (in general) have gotten out of the habit of proto-ing.
I don't see the connection here.
>Finally, the clause "right to have it voted on" is troubling. Is
>it "voted on" if a veto or guillotine end
On 5/7/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think we used to have some, though I forget what they were.
Most switches were loose. But they were not as loose as you propose,
because we still had the notion of executor back then:
Rule 2040/4 (Power=2)
Switches
[...]
An executo
Zefram wrote:
> I think it's been unhealthy in places. Short delays (such as the
> Speaker's Veto in practice achieves) seem fine, but not the indefinite
> delays and dropping of proposals that resulted from P-Notes and
> artificially restricted distribution.
Well, during the Papyri version of
Michael Slone wrote:
> Only entities explicitly given
> permission to flip a switch may flip it.
That's permission. What about capacity to flip switches?
>Amend rule 478 (Fora) by replacing the text reading:
...
> The Herald may change the publicity of a forum
Maud wrote:
Each switch has a collection of possible states, is attached to
a specific host entity, and has the power to modify a specific
property of the host, called its feature. An entity is a switch
only if the rules say it is. The default state of a switch is,
unl
Zefram wrote:
5) 2 beads to ban a player from judging a CFJ to which e is not
already assigned.
Does banning make em ineligible for assignment, or only oblige em to
not return a judgement?
This should be "bar" (R897) rather than "ban".
A player with 42 or more beads
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Loose switches may be changed by announcement.
So anyone can change a loose switch at will? Why would you ever want
one of these?
I think we used to have some, though I forget what they were.
Activity is a player switch with values Active and Inac
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Should be covered by the "receive judgement" clause.
If you apply that to the appeal clause, that implies that a single appeal
will have to result in an appeal judgement (where currently three are
required).
An appeal receives three judgements, yes, but this c
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> There's been a healthy history of proposal-killing/delaying procedures
>that we should keep that this would stop (e.g. vetoes, making undistributable,
>distribution costs in general).
I think it's been unhealthy in places. Short delays (such as the
Speaker's Veto in pract
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Create a rule titled "Earning Beads" with Power 2 and this text:
Needs updating due to P4943. So does "Forfeiting Beads".
>4) 2 beads to increase a proposal's adoption index by 0.1.
I'm dubious about letting this influence Democratic proposals.
>5) 2 beads to
Ed Murphy wrote:
> Loose switches may be changed by announcement.
So anyone can change a loose switch at will? Why would you ever want
one of these?
> Activity is a player switch with values Active and Inactive.
The construction "player switch" hasn't been adequately defined.
You coul
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Should be covered by the "receive judgement" clause.
If you apply that to the appeal clause, that implies that a single appeal
will have to result in an appeal judgement (where currently three are
required). Also, possibly, that an appeal judgement can be appealed.
-zefram
Murphy wrote:
>iv. Every person has the right to invoke a judgement, appeal a
>judgement, appeal a sentencing or judicial order binding em,
>and receive judgement in a timely fashion.
Looks good, for clarity, I'd suggest the "receive" clause right after
"invoke" c
Proto-Proposal: Beads and Wins
Rename Rule 2126 (Voting Credits) to "Beads", change its Power to 2,
and amend it to read:
Beads are property, but cannot be traded.
The Jewelor is an office. The Jewelor's report shall include
each player's beads.
Create a rule titled "Earnin
Zefram wrote:
iv. Every person has the right to invoke a judgement, appeal a
judgement, appeal a sentencing or judicial order binding em,
and receive judgement in a timely fashion.
Might have to detail what appeal achieves, in the light of the judgement
on "invoke"
35 matches
Mail list logo
