DIS: Imminent rotation
Would any of the new players like to sit up before the next rotation? (See Rule 1871.)
DIS: Re: BUS: RE: [Conductor] Lead Sheet
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:32 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ais523 wrote: CoE: The Mad Scientist has weekly duties but not monthly duties, therefore I am due to gain 1 E note for fulfilling those duties, and have already gained three E notes from such duties. Admitted. The following Mad Scientist salaries were missed; all should have been paid as E notes: Many of these note holdings self-ratified long ago.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: registration
no relation that I know of On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 12:41 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Welcome to Agora! Any relation to ais523? -root -- Chester Mealer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DIS: 1st proposal
This is just an idea I'm playing around with at the moment and does not meet the requirements of rule 106 yet to be a proposal. Anyone have thoughts on this: Amend rule: 1922 To append the following text: (g) Official Greeter, to be awarded by the IADoP, to any player who announces eir intent to become a greeter with Agoran consent (ratio 1). This title is to be revoked by the IADoP only following a judgement of TRUE on a CFJ on the statement X did not perform duties one would expect of a greeter, where X is a player currently holding the patent title of Official Greeter. Should one or more offices with duties of greeting and helping new players be created, any player not currently holding that office will lose the title of Official Greeter, and any player holding that office shall gain the title of Official Greeter. Thereafter, the title shall be granted and revoked as necessary to ensure that all holders of that office shall also have the title and all players not holding that office shall not have the title. -- Chester Mealer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
2008/6/17 Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I CFJ on the following statement: If ehrid was able to act on my
behalf at the time CFJ 1999 and CFJ 2000 were called one or more of
the set of {CFJ 1999, CFJ 2000} would've been TRUE.
The more interesting question behind these CFJs is what ehrid's
statement really could have done.
Whenever someone is part of a partnership or something of that
nature, it's customary for the player acting on behalf of the entity
to say that the partnership performs the action, e.g. 'The perlnomic
partnership votes as follows', or 'Human point two registers'. In
this case, ehrid stated that e performed the action of 'I deregister'
on my behalf. My interpretation is that e attempted to act on my
behalf to deregister em, which would make this CFJ FALSE, though I'm
not sure of the interpretation of the statement.
ehrid
DIS: Re: BUS: Werewolves, take two
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 12:03 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I no longer agree to the previous version of this. I agree to the following: 1) The name of this public contract is The Werewolves of Agora Nomic. ... b) Each townsperson CAN second a nomination made by another townsperson by announcement. This starts a discussion period of two days, followed immediately by a voting period; during these period, no townsperson CAN nominate or second. Is it just me, or is there no defined length for the voting period? I suppose Rule 107 says it should last for seven days, but that seems a bit long.
DIS: Re: BAK: Proto-proposal: Chambers
Proto (take II):
Chambers
AI: 3
{
Create a new rule titled Chambers with Power=3 and the text:
{{
A player who is a member of an existing public contract CAN make the
contract into a chamber with Agoran consent. A chamber requires no
parties. The authority index of a chamber is an rational number from 0
to 4, and is by default 0. A player CAN set the authority index of any
chamber to any valid value without Agoran consent. The authority index
CANNOT be changed by any other means. A chamber CAN through its own
internal mechanisms increase or decrease the power of any proposal by
an amount less than or equal to its authority index as a result of an
Agoran Decision regarding the acceptance of that proposal in that
chamber.
Any player CAN cause a chamber to cease to be a chamber without Agoran consent.
}}
Repeal R2196 (Standard Classes of Agoran Decisions)
Amend R106 (Adopting Proposals) by replacing:
{{
Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.
For this decision, the adoption index is the adoption index of
the proposal, and the vote collector is the Assessor.
If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,
then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it
from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and
its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not
otherwise take effect.
}}
with:
{{
Whenever the power of a proposal ever is equal to or exceeds its
adoption index then the proposal then the Rulekeepor SHALL adopt that
proposal in a timely fashion. When the Rulekeepor adopts a proposal,
unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, its power is set to
the the minimum of four and its adoption index, and it then is removed
from the Proposal Pool and takes effect. A proposal does not otherwise
take effect.
}}
Amend R1607 (The Promotor) by replacing:
{{
The Promotor MAY distribute a proposal in the Proposal Pool at
any time. The Promotor's weekly duties include the distribution
of each proposal that has been in the Proposal Pool since the
beginning of that week.
The Promotor distributes a proposal by publishing it with the
clear intent of distributing it. When a proposal is
distributed, it is removed from the Proposal Pool. The
distribution of a proposal initiates the Agoran decision of
whether to adopt the proposal, as described elsewhere.
For an Agoran decision of whether to adopt a proposal, the
following are essential parameters:
a) Its author (and co-authors, if any).
b) Its interest index.
}}
with:
{{
The author of a proposal in the Proposal Pool CAN request it be
distributed to a specific chamber by announcement. Any Player CAN,
with 2 support, request a proposal be distributed to a specific
chamber. The Promotor SHALL distribute each such requested proposal to
the specified chamber in a timely fashion unless that proposal has
already been distributed to that chamber previously.
The Promotor CAN remove any proposal from the proposal pool which the
author has not requested to be distributed within the past two weeks
or which has a negitive power. The Promotor SHALL remove any such
propoal from the pool in a timely fashion.
The Promotor distributes a proposal by publishing it with the clear
intent of distributing it. Distributing a proposal initiates an Agoran
decision for the acceptance of the proposal in the specified chamber.
An agoran decision for the acceptance of a proposal in a specific
chamber may also be known as a chamber decision (generic) or an XXX
Decision (where XXX is the name of the chamber). For an agoran
decision regarding the acceptance of a proposal the following are
essential parameters:
a) Its author (and co-authors, if any).
b) Its interest index.
c) The specified chamber.
The eligible voters on a chamber decision are the list of eligible
voters defined in that chamber, or in the case there is no such list
all parties to that chamber. The voting limit of each eligible voter
on chamber decision is equal to the voting limit(s) defined by that
chamber, or in the case there is none defined the voting limit is 1.
}}
Repeal R2142 (Support Democracy)
Amend R2019 (Prerogitives) by replacing:
{{
c) Wielder of Veto. The Wielder of Veto CAN veto an ordinary
decision in its voting period by announcement; this increases
its Adoption Index by 1.
d) Wielder of Rubberstamp. The Wielder of Rubberstamp CAN
rubberstamp an ordinary decision in its voting period by
announcement; this decreases its quorum to 3, rules to the
contrary notwithstanding.
}}
with:
{{
c) Wielder of Veto. The Wielder of Veto CAN veto any proposal in the
proposal pool by announcement; this increases its Adoption Index by 1.
d) Wielder of Rubberstamp. The Wielder of Rubberstamp CAN (once per
proposal) rubberstamp any proposal in the proposal pool by
announcement; this
Re: DIS: Re: BAK: Proto-proposal: Chambers
It seems like your proposal should say with Agoran Consent where it says without. Any player CAN cause a chamber to cease to be a chamber without Agoran consent. Unless I missed a rule where CAN = cannot this would mean at any time a player could simply declare a chamber as not a chamber. so shouldn't it read: Any player CAN cause a chamber to cease to be a chamber with Agoran consent. or Any player CAN cause a chamber to cease to be a chamber without Agoran objection. ? cdm014
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5547-5555
On 6/17/08, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: votes Voting when identifying proposals strictly by number (as opposed to quoting the distribution message) makes it much more difficult for the general public to see what you're voting for or against. Then again, that may be the desired result.
Re: DIS: Re: BAK: Proto-proposal: Chambers
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Chester Mealer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems like your proposal should say with Agoran Consent where it says without. Oops...thanks! BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5547-5555
comex wrote: On 6/17/08, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: votes Voting when identifying proposals strictly by number (as opposed to quoting the distribution message) makes it much more difficult for the general public to see what you're voting for or against. Then again, that may be the desired result. I take this opportunity to once again flog my unofficial vote reporting service, updated more or less daily (not with 100% guaranteed accuracy, but I do go back and make corrections as needed when the Assessor's official tally is published).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Werewolves, take two
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it just me, or is there no defined length for the voting period? I suppose Rule 107 says it should last for seven days, but that seems a bit long. Section d) defines when it ends. I suspect that as soon as possible after every single townsperson has voted could end up being too long as well, unless by some miracle every player actually remembers to actively participate in each phase.
DIS: RE: BUS: AAA - Mill me please
BobTHJ wrote: Oops...I also revoke 3 points from Quazie. Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC Quazie doesn't have 3 points. (It's hard to see how e could have gained them in such a short time.) If Quazie did get the land e wanted, and didn't have the points, I'm off to buy several thousand lands for my nonexistent points. -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: Re: BUS: Werewolves session 1
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 11:16 AM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I nominate Wooble for lynching. I second this. Well I guess I should have expected that. Umm, do I really need a 2-day discussion period to point out to the non-werewolves out there that there's a 75% chance they're making a horrible mistake if they lynch me?
DIS: Werewolves session 1
So, Wooble nominated comex, then ehird nominated Wooble and comex seconded. That isn't a lot to go on, but there's some information there, at least. Seconding that quickly is rare in real-life games of Mafia, I find. Nominating immediately on no evidence is surprisingly common, either to glean information or because there is no evidence, although I would recommend such activity doesn't continue into the next round. I am surprised that none of the players gave a reason, though. (I picked at random is a suprisingly common reason in the games I play). Unfortunately, all the players here could have an innocent reason or a guilty reason for what they did, although comex jumping in and closing off the nomination period like that is kind-of suspicious. (I would expect more thought to be put into things before seconding; if someone is seconded and then not lynched, it will kind-of delay the game by a lot.) -- ais523 winmail.dat
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: AAA - Mill me please
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BobTHJ wrote: Oops...I also revoke 3 points from Quazie. Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC Quazie doesn't have 3 points. (It's hard to see how e could have gained them in such a short time.) If Quazie did get the land e wanted, and didn't have the points, I'm off to buy several thousand lands for my nonexistent points. e was recently awarded 4 points for participation in the Fantasy Rules Contest. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Werewolves session 1
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately, all the players here could have an innocent reason or a guilty reason for what they did, although comex jumping in and closing off the nomination period like that is kind-of suspicious. Not that I want to deflect suspicion about a nomination to lynch me, but I'm fairly certain comex seconded so quickly to get revenge on me for nominating em and to preempt any seconds of eir own nomination. As for reasons, what information about the other players could we possibly have this early?
DIS: Proto: Emergency exit
Seeing what's happened to B Nomic recently (apparently almost
everything since last December has been illegal due to
specifying SHALL rather than SHALL and CAN), I think it's
probably a good idea to have some way to fix Agora if things
go really bad. So this is an attempt to write a rule which can,
by itself and without help from other rules, get the game out
of just about any mess.
This probably needs some work. (Incidentally, 'four-fifths'
because that's what would be needed for an AI of 4 under the
current rules, making Emergency Refreshes harder to pass than
Democratic Proposals).
Proto-proposal (AI=3, II=3):
Create a power-3.1 rule with the following text:
{{{
The set of Definite Players is {ais523, avpx, BobTHJ, cdm014,
comex, doopy, ehird, Eris, Iammars, Ivan Hope, Jeremy, Murphy,
Offhanded, OscarMeyr, Pavitra, pikhq, Quazie, root,
Schrodinger's Cat, woggle, Wooble, Zefram}.
A Definite Message is a message sent to all Definite Players,
or to a mailing list which all Definite Players are likely to be
subscribed to, by a Definite Player.
This rule can be amended to change the set of Definite Players
to the set of current first-class players, as long as a Definite
Player declared eir intention to do so in an Definite Message
between four and fourteen days before the amendment happened, by
stating that this action is being taken in a Definite Message,
along with the new set of Definite Players.
An Emergency Refresh is a set of changes to the rules and/or
gamestate, clearly labeled as an Emergency Refresh, written in
a Definite Message sent within the last fourteen days.
Any Definite Player can Accept an Emergency Refresh, by stating
that e Accepts it in a Definite Message.
When an Emergency Refresh has been Accepted by at least four-
fifths of the Definite Players, the rules and/or gamestate
change as specified in the Emergency Refresh, regardless of
what any other rule may state.
Apart from the phrase first-class players, all words in this
rule have their normal English meaning except as defined in this
rule, and their meanings cannot be overriden by any other entity.
}}}
--
ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Werewolves, take two
Wooble wrote: On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it just me, or is there no defined length for the voting period? I suppose Rule 107 says it should last for seven days, but that seems a bit long. Section d) defines when it ends. I suspect that as soon as possible after every single townsperson has voted could end up being too long as well, unless by some miracle every player actually remembers to actively participate in each phase. I'll send reminders. If it stalls frequently, I'll attempt an amendment saying that townspersons failing to vote within some reasonable time limit either (a) don't affect the ratio, or (b) have their votes selected randomly.
Re: DIS: Werewolves session 1
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately, all the players here could have an innocent reason or a guilty reason for what they did, although comex jumping in and closing off the nomination period like that is kind-of suspicious. Not that I want to deflect suspicion about a nomination to lynch me, but I'm fairly certain comex seconded so quickly to get revenge on me for nominating em and to preempt any seconds of eir own nomination. As for reasons, what information about the other players could we possibly have this early? I agree with Wobble, comex was just trying to save eir ass. I rarely see a game of Mafia where the first few people aren't lynched because you have nothing else to go on. comex didn't initiate the nomination of Wobble, so it isn't really that suspicious. I wouldn't have wanted to be the first townsperson up for potential lynching, and would've jumped on a similar opportunity if I was first nominated and then presented with an out. For all we know comex could be our seer and was making sure E would be helpful for at least the first round.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Banking, farming
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 2:28 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I mill 5547, 5548, and 5549 (using X crops as 5s), Democratic proposals, for a total of 12 points. BobTHJ, did you forget to process this? Just haven't got there yet. Sorry, it looked like you had processed all the other actions, so I thought you might have forgotten. You see, I want to spend my points ;).
DIS: Re: BUS: Win announcement
2008/6/17 Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The following sentence is a win announcement, as defined in Rule 2186, and this sentence serves to explicitly label it as one. The Call for Judgement with ID number 1980 is a tortoise, and has continuously been a tortoise for no greater than four and no less than two weeks. The sentence before this one is a correct announcement explicitly labeled as a win announcement, and it is a win announcement that a tortoise (namely CFJ 1980) has continuously been a tortoise for no greater than two and no less than four weeks. Therefore, by rule 2110, I satisfy the Winning Condition of Paradox. I satisfy at least one Winning Condition and no Losing Conditions; therefore, by rule 2186, I win the game. (Evidence: the question of veracity of CFJ 1980 was judged UNDECIDABLE on 3 June 2008 20:28:45 GMT, and the CFJ is about the possibility of a rule-defined action; the question has had a judgement of UNDECIDABLE continuously since then, so the CFJ was then and has always been since then a tortoise. That time was between 2 and 4 weeks ago.) -- ais523 Congratumalatarafanasulatations! ehird
Re: DIS: 1st proposal
Chester Mealer wrote: (g) Official Greeter, to be awarded by the IADoP, to any player who announces eir intent to become a greeter with Agoran consent (ratio 1). Why do it as a patent title when we have an office mechanism? -zefram
Re: DIS: 1st proposal
Because it wasn't well enough thought through, that's why i made sure it was not a proposal. I figured the patent title would let it be only semi-official and allow for multiple greeters. I was under the impression only one player could fill an office. -- Chester Mealer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DIS: The Hydra
I proto the following proposal: - 'The Hydra'
-
Create a rule entitled 'The Hydra' with the following text:
The Hydra is a multi-headed monster that is not controlled by the Mad
Scientist. Only Hurcules may attempt to slay the Hydra, all other
beings are far to weak.
-
I proto the following associated contract, that I intend to eventually
make a contest.
{
1. This is a public contract. The name of this contract is Hurcules.
2. The contestmaster of this contract is called Zeus. Initially, the
position of Zeus shall be filled by Quazie.
3. Parties to this contract are known as Voices. Any Player may become
party to this contract by announcement. Any Voice may cease to be
bound by this contract by announcement as long as that Voice has no
outstanding unfulfilled obligations imposed by this contract.
4. Once per week, any Voice may make a suggestion by announcement by
specifying a word to remove from the rule titled The Hydra and two
words to replace that word with. As soon as possible after the end of
each week Zeus SHALL select a random number of suggestions at
random and submit the changes specified by those suggestions as a
disinterested proposal. This is known as a Regeneration proposal.
5. Hydra Heads are a currency whose recordkeeper is Zeus. As soon as
possible after a Regeneration proposal passes Zeus shall create three
Hydra Heads in the possession of the Voices whose suggestions were
a part of it. As soon as possible after the voting period on a regeneration
proposal ends Zeus shall create a Hydra Head in the possession of each
Voice which cast a number of valid ballots FOR that proposal equal to eir
voting limit.
6. Any Voice CAN destroy three Hydra Heads e controls by announcement
to sacrifice to Zeus. Upon doing so Zeus SHALL in a timely fashion
attempt to award that Voice 5 points.
7. If no Voice has sacrificed to Zeus in the past 30 days Zeus CAN
become enraged by announcement. When Zeus becomes enraged each Voice
is obligated to as soon as possible submit a proposal which would
remove one word from the rule The Hydra. Voices are obligated to
cast a number valid votes FOR each such proposal equal to eir voting
limit. A Voice CAN destroy two Hydra Heads in eir possession by
announcement to appease Zeus and remove themselves from any
obligations imposed in this section.
}
I thank BobTHJ for eir help on the contractifying of my ideas.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Transposition
Ian Kelly wrote: What ever happened to this proposal? I lost it. Crap. It'll be in the next batch. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: Monstrous win
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hereby initiate a criminal case with Quazie as defendant, alleging that e violated rule 2149 by publicly claiming in message [EMAIL PROTECTED] that Echidna and Typhon are coauthors (or a coauthor) of the proposal that e submitted in that message. Arguments for the defense: Rule 106/12 (Power=3) Adopting Proposals ... A person is a co-author of a proposal if and only if e is distinct from its author, and unambiguously identified by its author as being its co-author at the time of submission. There is no regulation of how non-persons become co-authors of proposals.
DIS: Re: BUS: registration
On Jun 17, 2008, at 12:55 AM, Chester Mealer wrote: I am posting an announcement of my intent to register as a player under the name cdm014 Welcome to Agora, cdm014! How did you find us? - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Werewolves session 1
On Jun 17, 2008, at 4:12 PM, Quazie wrote: On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately, all the players here could have an innocent reason or a guilty reason for what they did, although comex jumping in and closing off the nomination period like that is kind-of suspicious. Not that I want to deflect suspicion about a nomination to lynch me, but I'm fairly certain comex seconded so quickly to get revenge on me for nominating em and to preempt any seconds of eir own nomination. I agree with Wobble, comex was just trying to save eir ass. Where I played my one game and have watched others, we call this an Oh My Gosh You Suck lynch vote, and it is generally treated as not being a Good Thing. But when I dropped an OMGUS vote on someone and ultimately got lynched, I came up Town. Go figure. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr, kibitzing
Re: DIS: 1st proposal
cdm014 wrote: I was under the impression only one player could fill an office. But offices can be (and have been) filled by partnerships.
Re: DIS: 1st proposal
On Tuesday 17 June 2008 16:48:00 Ed Murphy wrote: cdm014 wrote: I was under the impression only one player could fill an office. But offices can be (and have been) filled by partnerships. Yeah, I'd definitely go with an office for that. But I like the idea. avpx
Re: DIS: Proto: Emergency exit
On Tuesday 17 June 2008 13:53:39 Alexander Smith wrote:
Seeing what's happened to B Nomic recently (apparently almost
everything since last December has been illegal due to
specifying SHALL rather than SHALL and CAN), I think it's
probably a good idea to have some way to fix Agora if things
go really bad. So this is an attempt to write a rule which can,
by itself and without help from other rules, get the game out
of just about any mess.
This probably needs some work. (Incidentally, 'four-fifths'
because that's what would be needed for an AI of 4 under the
current rules, making Emergency Refreshes harder to pass than
Democratic Proposals).
Proto-proposal (AI=3, II=3):
Create a power-3.1 rule with the following text:
{{{
The set of Definite Players is {ais523, avpx, BobTHJ, cdm014,
comex, doopy, ehird, Eris, Iammars, Ivan Hope, Jeremy, Murphy,
Offhanded, OscarMeyr, Pavitra, pikhq, Quazie, root,
Schrodinger's Cat, woggle, Wooble, Zefram}.
A Definite Message is a message sent to all Definite Players,
or to a mailing list which all Definite Players are likely to be
subscribed to, by a Definite Player.
This rule can be amended to change the set of Definite Players
to the set of current first-class players, as long as a Definite
Player declared eir intention to do so in an Definite Message
between four and fourteen days before the amendment happened, by
stating that this action is being taken in a Definite Message,
along with the new set of Definite Players.
An Emergency Refresh is a set of changes to the rules and/or
gamestate, clearly labeled as an Emergency Refresh, written in
a Definite Message sent within the last fourteen days.
Any Definite Player can Accept an Emergency Refresh, by stating
that e Accepts it in a Definite Message.
When an Emergency Refresh has been Accepted by at least four-
fifths of the Definite Players, the rules and/or gamestate
change as specified in the Emergency Refresh, regardless of
what any other rule may state.
Apart from the phrase first-class players, all words in this
rule have their normal English meaning except as defined in this
rule, and their meanings cannot be overriden by any other entity.
}}}
Hmm. . . First off, this rule takes precedence over all other rules, so it
would have to have higher power than all others.
I do like the idea of a failsafe mechanism, though. . . However, if someone
were to become dictator of Agora or throw it into chaos, wouldn't that person
just repeal this rule?
I'd like more feedback on this issue, because it seems worthy of discussion.
avpx
Re: DIS: Werewolves session 1
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with Wobble, comex was just trying to save eir ass. Where I played my one game and have watched others, we call this an Oh My Gosh You Suck lynch vote, and it is generally treated as not being a Good Thing. But when I dropped an OMGUS vote on someone and ultimately got lynched, I came up Town. Go figure. I have no reason to suspect Wooble of being a werewolf. I seconded lynching em because otherwise there is a good chance that someone would have seconded my lynching, and furthermore that a majority would have voted to lynch me, just to start the game off with style. All it takes is one troublemaker or one person who wants to get to the night phase already (hmm...) and -boom! I'm under suspicion and likely to be killed, because that's the way the game works before you get any evidence. So yeah, it was just an OMGUS vote. I would not be surprised if I wound up dead tomorrow, if Wooble doesn't get lynched.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: registration
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Chester Mealer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nomic Wiki after finding out about nomic and tried one game in person. -- Chester Mealer [EMAIL PROTECTED] What game did you play in person? I was introduced to the concept of Nomic in a similar way, through playing a game of dots (a nomicified version of the type of dots game you play where you make squares for points) at school.
Re: DIS: Proto: Emergency exit
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Seeing what's happened to B Nomic recently (apparently almost everything since last December has been illegal due to specifying SHALL rather than SHALL and CAN) Well, that was just my opinion and a Consultation stating that Obligated to means CAN and SHALL would fix the problem, most likely. In any case, Agora's protected from that sort of thing by: a) it being IMPOSSIBLE to make any change that prevents the passage of proposals in 4 weeks; if Agora had a Clock and it couldn't be started, the change that led to it being impossible to start it could not happen. b) ratification of lots of the gamestate, so a 6+ month rollback wouldn't happen, and c) more players who would complain loudly if someone tried to change a rule giving an officer some absolutely essential power to a mere obligation that they exercise that power. Of course, the problem in B is compounded by the unfortunately-timed (and/or extremely suspicious) crash of the wiki's database server, which isn't the sort of thing that would hurt Agora since all the reports are in everyone's email and the rest of the computing infrastructure is both decentralized and mostly a convenience for the officers using it.
Re: DIS: Werewolves session 1
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 7:36 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would not be surprised if I wound up dead tomorrow, if Wooble doesn't get lynched. Well, assuming you and ehird aren't both werewolves, killing one of you to make people suspect I was getting revenge would be the logical move.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: registration
2008/6/18 Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED]: What game did you play in person? I was introduced to the concept of Nomic in a similar way, through playing a game of dots (a nomicified version of the type of dots game you play where you make squares for points) at school. A game of nomic, presumably. ehird
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 2:51 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I request subsidy. Fails. Subsidy is 7, you have 8 lands. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Paradox cleanup
So, um, a contract caused a win by paradox by saying if it's X, it becomes Y; if it's Y, it becomes Z; if it's Z, it becomes X; if it's X, stuff can happen, which is merely ambiguous? Note to self, then: jump on top of every ambiguity, and always appeal judgements of UNDECIDABLE. --Ivan Hope CXXVII
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
Quazie wrote: If possible I bar ehrid from the above CFJ. Not possible. Rule 591, excerpt: The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge of the case.
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Amended rule number gain Floor(power) random Crops Might want to update this. -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
Re: DIS: 1st proposal
(Still not a proposal) revised after some discussion now version 2.1 Agoran Welcoming Committee 1. This creates an office called Agoran Greeter. 2. This office is an imposed office. 3. This office shall remain vacant until imposed upon a partnership entitled Agoran Welcoming Committee. Should a partnership be so named, and meet the other requirements for eligibility, this office shall be imposed upon that partnership. 4. To be eligible for this office the partnership's obligations must include all of the following: A. Greet all new players. B. Engage in contact with new players to assist them. C. Engage in contact with new players to ensure a positive experience. There now this should provide for an office for greeters and ensure they have the proper obligations. -- Chester Mealer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DIS: Re: BUS: Bank run
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 8:42 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 7:27 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I make the following contract with the AFO: {{
1. This public contract (which becomes a public contract when it
forms) is called Mr. Monopoly 1. Parties to this contract are called
Monies.
2. Mr. Monopoly 1 is a partnership. Monies CAN and SHALL act on
behalf of it to satisfy its legal obligations, which Mr. Monopoly 1
devolves onto them.
3. Any Money may amend, terminate, or act on behalf of Mr. Monopoly 1
by announcement.
}}
None of this happened, as all the parties are the same as the AFO in
first-party members.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bank run
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: None of this happened, as all the parties are the same as the AFO in first-party members. So? -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
DIS: Re: BUS: Adjusting for inflation
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 10:09 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I set the deposit rate of 0 crops to 55.8 and the withdrawal rate to 1.1. I set the deposit rate of 1 crops to 95.4 and the withdrawal rate to 1.1. I set the deposit rate of 2 crops to 86.4 and the withdrawal rate to 1.1. I set the deposit rate of 4 crops to 45 and the withdrawal rate to 1.1. I set the deposit rate of 5 crops to 69.3 and the withdrawal rate to 1.1. I set the deposit rate of 6 crops to 55.7 and the withdrawal rate to 1.1. I set the deposit rate of 7 crops to 61.2 and the withdrawal rate to 1.1. I set the deposit rate of 8 crops to 83.9 and the withdrawal rate to 1.1. I set the deposit rate of 9 crops to 102.7 and the withdrawal rate to 1.1. I set the deposit rate of WRVs to 41.4 and the withdrawal rate to 1.1. I set the deposit rate of VPs to 46.8 and the withdrawal rate to 1.1. -root How? Withdraw rate must be within 10% of its former value. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Adjusting for inflation
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 10:37 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 10:09 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I set the deposit rate of 0 crops to 55.8 and the withdrawal rate to 1.1. I set the deposit rate of 1 crops to 95.4 and the withdrawal rate to 1.1. I set the deposit rate of 2 crops to 86.4 and the withdrawal rate to 1.1. I set the deposit rate of 4 crops to 45 and the withdrawal rate to 1.1. I set the deposit rate of 5 crops to 69.3 and the withdrawal rate to 1.1. I set the deposit rate of 6 crops to 55.7 and the withdrawal rate to 1.1. I set the deposit rate of 7 crops to 61.2 and the withdrawal rate to 1.1. I set the deposit rate of 8 crops to 83.9 and the withdrawal rate to 1.1. I set the deposit rate of 9 crops to 102.7 and the withdrawal rate to 1.1. I set the deposit rate of WRVs to 41.4 and the withdrawal rate to 1.1. I set the deposit rate of VPs to 46.8 and the withdrawal rate to 1.1. -root How? Withdraw rate must be within 10% of its former value. BobTHJ Never mind, just saw comex's message.
DIS: Re: BUS: Bank run
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 8:27 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I make the following contract with the AFO: {{
Now that you robbed the bank, any chance you might cause the AFO to
approve the recent attempted changes to it?
BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Banking, farming
Quazie wrote: On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BobTHJ wrote: On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 12:44 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I rename land #75 to Union Train Depot Fails. A land already exists with that name. I rename land #75 to The Courthouse. This fails as the last one didn't. ?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Werewolves session 1
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 11:16 AM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I nominate Wooble for lynching. I second this. Well I guess I should have expected that. Umm, do I really need a 2-day discussion period to point out to the non-werewolves out there that there's a 75% chance they're making a horrible mistake if they lynch me? Only 71.4%, actually. I *know* who one of the villagers is. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Banking, farming
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quazie wrote: On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BobTHJ wrote: On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 12:44 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I rename land #75 to Union Train Depot Fails. A land already exists with that name. I rename land #75 to The Courthouse. This fails as the last one didn't. ? The first attempt to change the name of land #75 was successful unless proven otherwise,. land isn't a rule defined entity, so nothing forbids lands from having the same name. As a result the second attempt to change the name of land #75 failed because no land was named land #75.
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Mill me please
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I CFJ on the following statements: 1 - BobTHJ successfully created land #98 in Quazie's possession On or about Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 12:59 PM. BobTHJ has attempted to first create a land in my possession and then revoke 3 points from me. The AAA contract states: 12. Once per week, a Farmer may attempt to purchase a new Land by announcing the type of Land e wishes to purchase. As soon as possible after such an announcement, if it is permitted for em to do so, the SoA shall revoke 3 Points from that Farmer and then create a Land of the specified type in that Farmer's possession. As such BobTHJ has performed the creation and revoking actions out of order. The question is, what has really happened? I think the point revocation clearly worked, since it satisfied the requirements of the contract. The SoA is generally able to create assets defined by the contract, so I would guess that worked as well. However, since e performed the two actions out of order, I would think that e is still required to create a Land in your possession. -root
Re: DIS: The Hydra
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I proto the following proposal: - 'The Hydra' - Create a rule entitled 'The Hydra' with the following text: The Hydra is a multi-headed monster that is not controlled by the Mad Scientist. Only Hurcules may attempt to slay the Hydra, all other beings are far to weak. - I think you mean Hercules. Also, the last sentence is a run-on. 1. This is a public contract. The name of this contract is Hurcules. Per judicial precedent, contracts cannot generally define terms used by the rules. 2. The contestmaster of this contract is called Zeus. Initially, the position of Zeus shall be filled by Quazie. The contestmaster is the person the rules say it is, not the person the contract says it is. -root
Re: DIS: The Hydra
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 10:09 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think you mean Hercules. Also, the last sentence is a run-on. Will fix the spelling in next proto. 1. This is a public contract. The name of this contract is Hurcules. Per judicial precedent, contracts cannot generally define terms used by the rules. The whole point was to have the sentence in the rules have no real value except for flavor text to go along with the contest. The whole hope was to create something like the Mad Scientist except that it was more communal. 2. The contestmaster of this contract is called Zeus. Initially, the position of Zeus shall be filled by Quazie. The contestmaster is the person the rules say it is, not the person the contract says it is. I thought other contests did something similar, I'll fix this too.
DIS: Re: BUS: Paradox cleanup
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judgements on CFJs called after this proposal passes are appropriate if and only if they would be appropriate if the Gnarlier Contract had never been a pledge. Ineffective. Proposal effects are instantaneous, not continuous. [Note: the ratification is intended to get the set of currently existing CFJs, and in particular the ID numbers assigned to them, into a known state. AI=3 so that this can ratify something without a rule specifically allowing it to.] What is unknown about the current set of CFJs? A partnership CANNOT register unless its basis and the text of its backing document are unambiguously known. I don't think this is necessary, since a partnership must be a public contract to register. Changes to a public contract must be published to take effect, so how could its basis or text be ambiguously known. A partnership CANNOT peform an action unless it is unambiguous that its backing document allows it to do so. Backing documents define assets, not partnerships. Insert the word unambiguously before each of the four occurrences of defined in rule 2166. Insert the word unambiguously before each of the two occurrences of specify in rule 2181. It seems like it would be much simpler to legislate that contracts must be generally unambiguous than to go inserting the word into every other rule. (e) causing a contract to become a pledge or to cease to be a pledge Making it a contract change doesn't prevent the contract from doing automatically. Also, this would allow parties to contracts to flip the status on and off at will, which conflicts with the definition in R2191. R2191 wins precedence, but it's still good practice to avoid the conflict in the first place. Contestmaster is a public contract switch, tracked by the Notary, with a default value of 'none', and a set of possible values which consists of all first-class players and 'none'. The possible values should be restricted to those first-class players who are actually party to the contract. The Scorekeepor's report also contains the contestmaster of each contest with a contestmaster other than 'none'. A public contract is a contest if and only if it has a contestmaster other than 'none'. A public contract is a contest if and only if its contestmaster is not 'none'. The Scorekeepor's report includes the contestmaster of each contest. Set the contestmaster of all contracts which were contests before this proposal passed to the contestmaster such contracts had before this proposal passed. immediately before. The immediately is important. -root
Re: DIS: Proto: Emergency exit
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Seeing what's happened to B Nomic recently (apparently almost everything since last December has been illegal due to specifying SHALL rather than SHALL and CAN), Silly B Nomic. But I thought they had a rule explicitly enabling ISIDTID? I think it's probably a good idea to have some way to fix Agora if things go really bad. So this is an attempt to write a rule which can, by itself and without help from other rules, get the game out of just about any mess. What might this protect us from that R1698 would not? -root
Re: DIS: Werewolves session 1
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As for reasons, what information about the other players could we possibly have this early? Er, well, the werewolves already have nearly perfect information. -root
Re: DIS: 1st proposal
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 8:58 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also, the rules (especially rules with power less than 2, that of rule 2145, Partnerships) can't just create partnerships; to be a partnership, something has to be a binding agreement governed by the rules which devolves its legal obligations onto a subset of its parties, numbering at least two, collectively to be a partnership. It works when Rule 2169 does it, doesn't it? (By the way, is it the subset or the parties themselves that must number at least two?) The subset. -root
