DIS: Judge assignment tweak
In the interest of spreading the judicial workload among as many players as possible, I've updated the 'assign judge' web form to give preference to hugging players for inquiry cases, similarly hanging for criminal.
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2017 assigned to root
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 12:37 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2017 == CFJ 2017 == I am a first-class partnership. Caller: ehird Would the caller care to make a legal argument explaining how e came to be a partnership? Otherwise I'm just going to rule FALSE on the grounds that it appears to be totally unsupported by the rules. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Paradox cleanup
root wrote: On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First, let me explain why I made these proposals outright rather than protoing them (which is what I'd normally do for proposals this complex); it was merely a technicality due to the paradox cleanup rule. I was making a reasonable attempt at resolving the paradox; I'd prefer it to be a watertight attempt, though. The Promotor caught me rather by surprise by distributing the proposals! (I felt that making the proposals would be considered a reasonable attempt at resolving the paradox, whereas merely protoing them might not be.) 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. Where does it say that? [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? Whether comex filed an equity case against the Gnarlier Contract. (E tried to, and it was found UNDECIDABLE whether this was possible, so I can only include that it's undecidable whether e created the CFJ. Murphy ignored the message, which was a reasonable action under the circumstances, and I was ratifying the docket that assigned ID numbers to the CFJs called after comex's attempt, thus removing any CFJ that comex may have created from the gamestate. 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. No, but it has to be a public contract to be a person. I'm not entirely sure what happens if a non-person partnership tries to register, probably nothing but I wanted to be sure. 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. Ah yes, I should have said its contract. 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. The idea is to allow contracts to be ambiguous, but to prevent an ambiguity or paradox in a contract escalating into a paradox in the rules, in line with the judgement in CFJ 1980. This is probably not the only way to fix it. (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. R2191 needs fixing, I think. Probably pledgeness should work the same way as public-contractness. But you're right, this is bad practice as is. 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. I'm not sure about that; the way I've written it, it's impossible to draft an unwilling player to contestmaster a contract. I don't see any obvious problems that would be caused by having a contestmaster not party to a contract; e can still only award and revoke points as specifically allowed by 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. Better, but I think it means the same thing. 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. Because it's ambiguous otherwise? Ah, because you resigned as contestmaster from a contest and so it's currently a contest without a contestmaster, I hadn't thought of that. -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: Re: BUS: Paradox cleanup
ihope wrote: 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. No, it is a paradox (or at least the statement was incapable of being correctly described as true or false, which is what UNDECIDABLE means); however, I'd say that if something is paradoxical, it is not unambiguously true. -- ais523 winmail.dat
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Paradox cleanup
ais523 wrote: root wrote: What is unknown about the current set of CFJs? Whether comex filed an equity case against the Gnarlier Contract. (E tried to, and it was found UNDECIDABLE whether this was possible, so I can only include that it's undecidable whether e created the CFJ. Murphy ignored the message, which was a reasonable action under the circumstances, and I was ratifying the docket that assigned ID numbers to the CFJs called after comex's attempt, thus removing any CFJ that comex may have created from the gamestate. This can be cleaned up by comex retracting the CFJ (in case it exists).
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Paradox cleanup
Murphy wrote: ais523 wrote: root wrote: What is unknown about the current set of CFJs? Whether comex filed an equity case against the Gnarlier Contract. (E tried to, and it was found UNDECIDABLE whether this was possible, so I can only include that it's undecidable whether e created the CFJ. Murphy ignored the message, which was a reasonable action under the circumstances, and I was ratifying the docket that assigned ID numbers to the CFJs called after comex's attempt, thus removing any CFJ that comex may have created from the gamestate. This can be cleaned up by comex retracting the CFJ (in case it exists). I'm not so sure; if it did exist, then you violated a time limit to assign it to someone, but if it didn't, then you didn't. So there'll still be something unknown in the gamestate. -- ais523 winmail.dat
Re: DIS: The Hydra
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 1:17 AM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. I think other contests say stuff like There is a position called X. If this contract is a contest, X is its contestmaster. Initially, Ivan Hope is X. When the contract becomes a contest, the position X becomes filled by the contestmaster, not the other way around. I guess you could argue that Initially, the position of Zeus shall be filled by Quazie means that if any other person becomes a contestmaster, you can initiate a criminal case against them for not being Quazie. :-) --Ivan Hope CXXVII
DIS: New Forum?
H. Distributor Eris, Would you consider the creation of a new discussion forum, the Agora-Contests (or -Contracts) forum? Suggested Rule to accompany: If a contract refers to a discussion forum as its official forum, messages sent there SHOULD be considered announcements for the purposes of performing actions defined by the contract or for informing or obtaining consent from its members (including the purposes of dependent actions described by the contract as being limited to member support or objection. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Proto: Emergency exit
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 1:41 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Silly B Nomic. But I thought they had a rule explicitly enabling ISIDTID? What is ISIDTID? --Ivan Hope CXXVII
Re: DIS: New Forum?
Kerim Aydin wrote: Would you consider the creation of a new discussion forum, the Agora-Contests (or -Contracts) forum? Most of us would have to be on it, and would be uninterested in most of the traffic. I think there should be separate fora for each contest. -zefram
Re: DIS: 1st proposal
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 1:58 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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? I don't believe the rules (especially those with power below 3) can just create binding agreements among people, as Every person has the right to refuse to become party to a binding agreement. The absence of a person's explicit, willful consent shall be considered a refusal. --Ivan Hope CXXVII
Re: DIS: Proto: Emergency exit
ihope wrote: What is ISIDTID? I say I do, therefore I do. The cause of much philosophical debate regarding actions that are defined only by the rules. -zefram
RE: DIS: Proto: Emergency exit
root wrote: 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? I can think of several things. For instance, 'proposal' and 'rule change' being accidentally misredefined so they no longer allow arbitrary changes; maybe all players being deregistered (although R1698 prevents this, I can sort-of imagine a situation in which R101 would take precedence over it, say if players were deregistering to avoid a scam), or indeed the B Nomic trouble where 'week' was effectively redefined to be infinitely long. (They distinguish between nweeks (their own concept) and rweeks (similar to Agora's weeks); most things are measured in ndays, and the issue at B nomic is that there haven't been any ndays in several months.) Also, the Fantasy Rules Committee had problems with people scamming a rule similar to R1698 (it's possible to win the FRC like that); there were rules stating things like all proposals must contain a page from the Vladivostok telephone directory, and R1698 does not ban that because a 4-week period would be enough to fix the erroneous rule and then adopt an arbitary proposal. Another potential issue would be all the public forums disappearing for some reason (imagine a rival nomic DOSing them), which is a situation the new rule could escape from; it could also get Agora out of the 4E41 situation (B Nomic passed a rule, called 4E41, that effectively prevented any messages that mentioned it reaching the public forum; I'm not sure whether R1698 would stop something like that, but in the end they needed an emergency session to deal with it). Finally, I can imagine a situation where Agora winds up in a really drastically unknown gamestate, where even though there is a way to pass a proposal within four weeks, nobody is entirely sure how. (Imagine if we ran an experiment where some rules were kept secret, say rules which were the result of an Insaner Proposal; that could lead to a situation such as that.) There are probably lots of other things that I can't think of either. Yes, it's possible for a scamster to remove this rule when scamming for a dictatorial victory, or whatever: but I hope that it's robust against pretty much all accidental breakage that could occur (and accidental breakage in nomics can be pretty weird). -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: Re: BUS: Banking, farming
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 11:09 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With the consent of all Bankers, I intend to modify the Bank of Agora contract by replacing Bankers shall act in good faith, keeping in mind that the Bank of Agora's holdings belong to those people who have pens, not the Bankers. with Bankers SHALL NOT deposit a currency within 7 days after increasing its deposit rate, or withdraw a currency within 7 days after decreasing its withdrawal rate. I consent
Re: DIS: Proto: Emergency exit
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Zefram wrote: ihope wrote: What is ISIDTID? I say I do, therefore I do. The cause of much philosophical debate regarding actions that are defined only by the rules. Specifically, all the actions we perform around here are speech acts, enabled by the Rules (posting I give Zefram 1 pen creates a legal requirement for the recordkeepor of pens to note the change). This leads many to make the mistake that any statement describing any action (e.g. I jump up and down) or I give Zefram 1 pen an infinite number of times is the same as actually doing it (jumping up and down, or posting an infinite number of messages). As Michael once said, the only actual actions we ever do is send messages, and sometimes those message create legal requirements for recordkeepors to modify the contents of other messages. Kelly once called the fallacy of the above belief A typical example of I Say I Do, Therefore I Do, which has plagued Agora for a long time and the quote appeared in a sig for a while hence the ISIDTID abbreviation. Maybe we just need some /emote tags. I mean in my day (Nomic World), when you said you jumped up and down, you actually jumped up and down! Or at least, um, you looked like you did. -Goethe
Re: DIS: The Hydra
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 1:09 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think you mean Hercules. Also, the last sentence is a run-on. Bah, that's a horrible Romanization anyway. His name was derived from Hera, and the Romans were too dumb to rename him Junoculo or something when they stole him along with every other idea they ever had.
RE: DIS: Proto: Emergency exit
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Alexander Smith wrote: Finally, I can imagine a situation where Agora winds up in a really drastically unknown gamestate, where even though there is a way to pass a proposal within four weeks, nobody is entirely sure how. We're already in such a gamestate. Ref: The Annabel Crisis. -Goethe
RE: DIS: Proto: Emergency exit
Goethe wrote: On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Alexander Smith wrote: Finally, I can imagine a situation where Agora winds up in a really drastically unknown gamestate, where even though there is a way to pass a proposal within four weeks, nobody is entirely sure how. We're already in such a gamestate. Ref: The Annabel Crisis. Can you give some details? A search only turns up an old message by you in a-d which gives some hints, but assumed the reader already knew what was meant, and a 419 spam sent to another mailing list entirely. -- ais523 winmail.dat
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Mill me please
E is only allowed to create or destroy land according to the contract. (I'm assuming) The contract states in order to create the land e must revoke 3 points. Ergo, there is an argument to be made that announcing the creation of the land, is also a de jure announcement that e has revoked the points. The later announcement that the points have been revoked might not be false depending on if an on or about clause was present and if the about could extend backwards to the point of the announcing the land had been created. In this case it would be the same as making the two announcements via separate emails and having the second arrive first. However, I'm not the judge on the CFJ (yet). -- Chester Mealer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: DIS: Proto: Emergency exit
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Alexander Smith wrote: Goethe wrote: On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Alexander Smith wrote: Finally, I can imagine a situation where Agora winds up in a really drastically unknown gamestate, where even though there is a way to pass a proposal within four weeks, nobody is entirely sure how. We're already in such a gamestate. Ref: The Annabel Crisis. Can you give some details? A search only turns up an old message by you in a-d which gives some hints, but assumed the reader already knew what was meant, and a 419 spam sent to another mailing list entirely. The Annabel Crisis appeared in a 419 scam? Do tell! (And I'll tell you :) ). -Goethe
RE: DIS: Proto: Emergency exit
Goethe wrote: The Annabel Crisis appeared in a 419 scam? Do tell! (And I'll tell you :) ). Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be deliberate. http://osdir.com/ml/sysutils.pcp/2005-12/msg9.html is archived by one of the same websites that archives Agora mailing lists, and contains both the words Annabel and crisis. -- ais523 winmail.dat
RE: DIS: Proto: Emergency exit
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Alexander Smith wrote: Goethe wrote: The Annabel Crisis appeared in a 419 scam? Do tell! (And I'll tell you :) ). Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be deliberate. http://osdir.com/ml/sysutils.pcp/2005-12/msg9.html is archived by one of the same websites that archives Agora mailing lists, and contains both the words Annabel and crisis. Ok, full story: Annabel was a player who registered for a few months in 1999 and 2001, participated in a minor way (did very little) and later deregistered. No big deal. Or at least so it appeared. A couple years after the fact, out of the blue, longtime player Maud confessed to something that had been bugging em for a long time: e was really Annabel, and had posted those messages under that alias. Unfortunately, then, as now, we didn't hold by avatar theory. You didn't create multiple personalities (avatars) by registering. You were one person, and regardless of whose nickname you posted under, all those actions applied to you. So, all actions that Annabel posted were really performed by Maud because they were posted by Maud. Including (the big one) when Annabel posted I deregister. So Maud had really not been a player for a couple years when everyone thought e was a player. This Included time periods of being assessor and posting the results of proposals. Which e was never authorized to do. And we had no self- ratification, so it was suddenly unclear what proposals hadn't passed because e wasn't assessor, and what proposals after that were broken because they relied on the earlier proposals, etc. etc. Also, many officer elections would have been invalid, so we had no idea who the real officers were to actually pass proposals. Solutions proposed: 1. judicially declare all actions performed by annabel to be (retroactively) ineffective because, in retrospect, the messages didn't constitute clear communication as to whom they applied to (I still think this would have and did work, hence no crisis, but this was a minority view). 2. have everyone deregister except 1 person whom we were sure was still a player and had been a player throughout the whole time. That person would become the holder of every office and proposals would have a quorum of 1. We would then be sure whom the holder of every office was. E could then ratify by proposal the recent rulesets and officer reports and everyone could re-register going on as before. (I think this fix wouldn't work/is broken now, when offices can be vacant and the speaker is no longer the default officeholder?) Anyway, we never did this, maybe because we never convinced everyone to deregister en masse. 3. pass a proposal ratifying the gamestate without #2 first. I think we did this, but I think several people always thought this didn't solve the problem (and we still haven't solved the problem) because we didn't do #2 first. That's the Annabel crisis! Which we still might be in. Or maybe self- ratification has invisibly lifted us out of it... if the self-ratification rule ever passed. -Goethe
DIS: RE: Bank run
comex wrote: [snip] Mr. Monopoly 46 sets the withdrawal rate of 9 crops to 1. Mr. Monopoly 46 sets the withdrawal rate of 1 crops to 1. Mr. Monopoly 46 transfers 716 Pens to the AFO. I terminate Mr. Monopoly 46. [snip] Ironically, I'd thought up a scam very similar to this one independently, but didn't actually try to pull it off. (I hadn't quite managed to work out the details at the time.) -- ais523 winmail.dat
Re: DIS: New Forum?
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 6:43 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Zefram wrote: Kerim Aydin wrote: Would you consider the creation of a new discussion forum, the Agora-Contests (or -Contracts) forum? Most of us would have to be on it, and would be uninterested in most of the traffic. I think there should be separate fora for each contest. Yah, could you AAA guys find some private forum somewhere? I thought contest fora were matters of courtesy. The problem arises when contracts have spillover traffic between each other. For example, many AAA actions involve interaction with the Vote Market or Bank of Agora contracts as well. It would make recordkeeping quite difficult if each had a separate forum that had to be checked for spillover actions. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: bank fix
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 7:37 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend, with the consent of the other bankers, to case the Bank of Agora to amend its contract, replacing Pens are a currency. with Pens are a currency, ownership of which is restricted to Players. I don't consent, simply because I think a better fix exists. This prevents the scam but doesn't address the root of the problem. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Paradox cleanup
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 3:08 AM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ineffective. Proposal effects are instantaneous, not continuous. Where does it say that? When a proposal is adopted, it takes effect. It does not go into effect and henceforth remain there. That's what rules are for. No, but it has to be a public contract to be a person. I'm not entirely sure what happens if a non-person partnership tries to register, probably nothing but I wanted to be sure. Non-persons can't register. Nor can they even attempt to register, since they cannot perform actions by definition. I'm not sure about that; the way I've written it, it's impossible to draft an unwilling player to contestmaster a contract. I don't see any obvious problems that would be caused by having a contestmaster not party to a contract; e can still only award and revoke points as specifically allowed by the contract. E would not be bound to award and revoke points as required by the contract, nor to perform any of the other duties the contract may require em to do. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Partnerships
On 6/18/08, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I submit the following proposal, titled Repeal Partnerships (AI=2, II=0): I wouldn't support repealing partnerships altogether-- for example, the AFO provides a nice place for Murphy and I to store crops-- but there are definitely some negatives: - large numbers of scam partnerships makes a lot of scams possible that otherwise would require a very large number of people - partnerships like the AFO mean that many scams that would otherwise require cooperation can be done by one person (this increases scams' potential destructiveness and, to be honest, makes them less interesting) How about: a person can only be part of one partnership at a time, partnerships only become eligible to register 24 hours after they become public? This would make things a little more sane while keeping partnerships in the rules.
DIS: RE: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Partnerships
comex wrote: On 6/18/08, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I submit the following proposal, titled Repeal Partnerships (AI=2, II=0): I wouldn't support repealing partnerships altogether-- for example, the AFO provides a nice place for Murphy and I to store crops-- but there are definitely some negatives: - large numbers of scam partnerships makes a lot of scams possible that otherwise would require a very large number of people - partnerships like the AFO mean that many scams that would otherwise require cooperation can be done by one person (this increases scams' potential destructiveness and, to be honest, makes them less interesting) How about: a person can only be part of one partnership at a time, partnerships only become eligible to register 24 hours after they become public? This would make things a little more sane while keeping partnerships in the rules. I don't really like that. Personally, I'd prefer it if there were a way to restrict things to /interesting/ partnerships, like the PerlNomic Partnership, which I don't want to lose. -- ais523 winmail.dat
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Paradox cleanup
On 6/18/08, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Non-persons can't register. Nor can they even attempt to register, since they cannot perform actions by definition. It is possible for judicial panels to take actions, even though they are not persons.
Re: DIS: RE: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Partnerships
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: comex wrote: On 6/18/08, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I submit the following proposal, titled Repeal Partnerships (AI=2, II=0): I wouldn't support repealing partnerships altogether-- for example, the AFO provides a nice place for Murphy and I to store crops-- but there are definitely some negatives: - large numbers of scam partnerships makes a lot of scams possible that otherwise would require a very large number of people - partnerships like the AFO mean that many scams that would otherwise require cooperation can be done by one person (this increases scams' potential destructiveness and, to be honest, makes them less interesting) How about: a person can only be part of one partnership at a time, partnerships only become eligible to register 24 hours after they become public? This would make things a little more sane while keeping partnerships in the rules. I don't really like that. Personally, I'd prefer it if there were a way to restrict things to /interesting/ partnerships, like the PerlNomic Partnership, which I don't want to lose. How about: Any contract (which meets the requirements) may become a Partnership without 3 objections? It works for contests, why not partnerships? BobTHJ
RE: DIS: RE: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Partnerships
BobTHJ wrote: Any contract (which meets the requirements) may become a Partnership without 3 objections? It works for contests, why not partnerships? That inserts one of the paradox escalation holes that I've just been trying to get rid of, but I like the principle. (If a contract is set up so that it's ambiguous or paradoxical whether it meets the requirements, that's a Win by Paradox right there.) -- ais523 winmail.dat
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Partnerships
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 11:19 AM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about: a person can only be part of one partnership at a time, partnerships only become eligible to register 24 hours after they become public? This would make things a little more sane while keeping partnerships in the rules. Well, you just demonstrated that registering isn't necessary to make partnerships destructive, although I applaud you for showing that we should be careful to avoid many situations where non-players can participate in the game.
Re: DIS: 1st proposal
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 6:12 AM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't believe the rules (especially those with power below 3) can just create binding agreements among people, as Every person has the right to refuse to become party to a binding agreement. The absence of a person's explicit, willful consent shall be considered a refusal. The proposed rule doesn't claim to bind people to the partnership without explicit consent. There's an issue of timing, where the partnership is claimed to exist while it still has no parties, but that could be ironed out. In any case, the new version dodges these issues. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Mill me please
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 7:19 AM, Chester Mealer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: E is only allowed to create or destroy land according to the contract. (I'm assuming) Per Rule 2166/5: An asset whose backing document is not a rule generally CAN be created by its recordkeepor by announcement, subject to modification by its backing document. The contract does not purport to limit the circumstances under which the SoA CAN create land. The contract states in order to create the land e must revoke 3 points. No, it just requires em to revoke 3 points and then create a land. It doesn't say that e can't create another land first. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Partnerships
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, comex wrote: How about: a person can only be part of one partnership at a time, partnerships only become eligible to register 24 hours after they become public? This would make things a little more sane while keeping partnerships in the rules. Holy Groups!
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2013 assigned to Wooble
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: rules, or regulation[s] determining the methods or course of a game or the like (OED), and as such lack the capacity and do not claim to [...] Rule is defined by R2141, so the appeal to common definition is incorrect. Well now you can't expect me to read *every* sentence in the rule while ruling about it. I believe type of instrument with the capacity of govern the game generally is pretty much synonymous with the OED's definition, though, so I think my reasoning, if not the evidence behind it, still stands. If anyone disagrees, I'll happily support their appeal, though.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Partnerships
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 11:19 AM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about: a person can only be part of one partnership at a time, partnerships only become eligible to register 24 hours after they become public? This would make things a little more sane while keeping partnerships in the rules. You might also want to say that a partnership CANNOT register if its basis is a subset of any other player's basis, stuff notwithstanding. (Sets are subsets of themselves unless otherwise stated.) --Ivan Hope CXXVII
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Office of Greeter
my statement should satisfy CFJ 712 as unambiguous enough to refer to em. -- Chester Mealer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DIS: proto Stock Market
another idea, clearly not a proposal yet Agoran Stock Market 1. This contract is known as the Agoran Stock Market. 2. This contract creates a currency known as SMDs which are fungible. 3. This contract creates a currency known as shares which contain a stock symbol. 4. A stock symbol is a string of one to five alphanumeric characters. 5. Shares with the same stock symbol are fungible. 6. Shares with different stock symbols are not fungible. 7. Shares, and SMDs may only be created, destroyed, and echanged, according to the terms of this contract. 8. There shall be five offices, under this contract, known as SEC Members. These offices shall be imposed upon the first five players to join this contract. 9. Any player may join this contract by announcing eir intent to do so. 10. SEC support means a vote in which at least 3 of the SEC members voted FOR the proposal. 11. Any SEC member may change this contract with SEC support. 12. No player who is not holding an office of SEC member may change this contract. 13. The first player to join the SEC also holds the office of SEC President. 14. The SEC President shall vacate the office if e is not able to be a contest master for this contract should it become a contest. 15. Upon 10 players joining this contract the SEC President shall change this contract into a contest with emself as contest master. 16. If the office of SEC President is vacant the set of players who hold the office of SEC member shall elect from emselves a player to be SEC President who is capable of serving as contestmaster. 17. If no SEC member is capable of serving as constestmaster, the player who has been an SEC member the longest SHALL AND MUST vacate eir office. 18. If an office of SEC member is vacant the players who have joined this contract shall elect from emselves a player to that office who is capable of serving as contest master. 19. The SEC President shall serve as record keeper of shares, SMDs, and Companies. 20. A company may be formed by three members of this contract with SEC support by announcing eir intention to form the company, the company name, and the company stock symbol. 21. A company may only have one stock symbol, and may not use a stock symbol already owned by another company. 22. When a company is formed, the SEC President shall destroy a number of SMDs in the possession of each player forming the company equal to the number of SMDs they own multiplied by 0.5. E shall then create in eir possession a number of shares with the stock symbol ofthe company they formed such that the total number of shares with that symbol is 100 and one member owns no more than 1 more than another member (33 + 33 + 34 = 100). The three members who created the company become known as its board of directors. Thereafer the board of directors for the company are the three members who own the most shares. In the event of two or more players owning the same number of shares the player with the first player name in alphabetical order who owns that number of shares with that symbol is deemed to hold more shares. 23. A Board of Directors may request a stock split with SEC support, by announcing eir intention to do so and specifying a multiple of 0.1 between 0 and 2. The SEC President shall then create in the possession of each member to this contract a number of shares equal to X times the multiple specified by the company's board of Directors, where X is the number of shares that have the companies stock symbol which that player already owned. 24. A board of directors may request a distribution of dividents with SEC support by announcing eir intention to do so. The President shall then specify a Random integer between 0 and 100 and shall create in the possession of each member of this contract a number of SMDs equal to X * Y / 100 where Y is the number specified by the President. The SEC President shall specify the random number exactly once per approved request. 25. A player may request a conversion between then SMDs and points with SEC approval by announcing eir intent to convert a certain number of points or a certain number of SMDs. The SEC President shall then destroy that number of points or SMDs and create or award a number of points or SMDs according to the ratio specified in this contract. 26. The ratio of points to SMDs is 2:100. 27. A player may announce a desire to exchange a number of SMDs for shares with a given symbol by posting a message containing eir name the word BUY in capital letters, the symbol they want the shares to have, and the amount of SMDs they are willing to exchange. The player posting the message shall be the recordkeepor of eir own desire to exchange SMDs for shares. 28. A player may announce a desire to exhcnage a number of shares with a given symbol for SMDs by posting a message containing eir name the word SELL in capital letters, the
DIS: Re: BUS: Office of Greeter
cdm014 wrote: I submit the following proposal as player cdm014. Co-Authors are: Zefram avpx ihope -root the player who sends e-mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Murphy. Title: Agoran Welcoming Committee Agora does not use the convention of proposals implicitly create a rule with title and text matching theirs, unless otherwise specified that I've seen in some other nomics. A suggested revision follows. 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. Create a rule titled Agoran Welcoming Committee with this text: The Greeter is an imposed office. While a partnership named Welcoming Committee exists, and its obligations 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. then this office is imposed upon that partnership. Otherwise, this office is vacant.
Re: DIS: Proto: Emergency exit
Goethe wrote: Solutions proposed: 1. judicially declare all actions performed by annabel to be (retroactively) ineffective because, in retrospect, the messages didn't constitute clear communication as to whom they applied to (I still think this would have and did work, hence no crisis, but this was a minority view). I don't remember this being brought up. It would have required recalculating the gamestate to account for the removal of Annabel's purported actions, except that #3 later patched over it. 2. have everyone deregister except 1 person whom we were sure was still a player and had been a player throughout the whole time. That person would become the holder of every office and proposals would have a quorum of 1. We would then be sure whom the holder of every office was. E could then ratify by proposal the recent rulesets and officer reports and everyone could re-register going on as before. (I think this fix wouldn't work/is broken now, when offices can be vacant and the speaker is no longer the default officeholder?) Anyway, we never did this, maybe because we never convinced everyone to deregister en masse. A similar solution was applied rigorously back around 1997. A proposal revamping the economy was purportedly adopted, then months later was discovered to have failed. Zefram worked out about a dozen potential values of the gamestate just for who held which offices, depending on interpretation (the Quantum Crisis), then we all agreed to patch it as follows: a) All but one player announced If I am Promotor, then I resign, naming the one player as my successor. This collapsed the quantum states for that portion of the gamestate. b) The holder of Assessor was similarly collapsed. c) A fix proposal was adopted, effectively ratifying the adoption of the original economic revamp proposal. 3. pass a proposal ratifying the gamestate without #2 first. I think we did this, but I think several people always thought this didn't solve the problem (and we still haven't solved the problem) because we didn't do #2 first. We did (that was one of my proposals); it basically ratified the legal fiction that actions performed via Maud's and Annabel's e-mail addresses during the time in question were performed by separate persons.
DIS: Re: BUS: bank equity
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 6:46 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I initiate the following Equity Case: contract: The Bank of Agora parties: AFO, BobTHJ, Ivan Hope, Wooble, root, Teh Cltohed Mna state of affairs whereby events have not proceeded as envisioned by the contract: comex made use of a series of partnerships to rob the bank, which was not envisioned by the contract. Finally. A proper use of the equity court. -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
Re: DIS: proto Stock Market
cdm014 wrote: 2. This contract creates a currency known as SMDs which are fungible. What is this an initialism for? which are fungible should be removed; it's a broken version of what Rule 2166 (Assets) already covers (e.g. instances should not be fungible while they have different owners). 3. This contract creates a currency known as shares which contain a stock symbol. 4. A stock symbol is a string of one to five alphanumeric characters. 5. Shares with the same stock symbol are fungible. 6. Shares with different stock symbols are not fungible. This contradicts Rule 2166 more directly. Suggested revision: For each stock symbol, 'symbol shares' is a currency. Also, which alphabet are you using? 8. There shall be five offices, under this contract, known as SEC Members. These offices shall be imposed upon the first five players to join this contract. Contracts can't define offices (Rule 1006), but can define non-office roles/positions. What if someone leaves before all the positions are filled? Suggested revision: When a player joins this contract, if there are less than five SEC members, then e becomes a SEC member. 10. SEC support means a vote in which at least 3 of the SEC members voted FOR the proposal. Do you really intend to use the proposal mechanism? Suggested revision: SEC support means 'with the support of 3 SEC members'. If the number of SEC members changes, does the threshold remain at 3, or do you intend to require a majority? What if the number of SEC members is not at its maximum? 17. If no SEC member is capable of serving as constestmaster, the player who has been an SEC member the longest SHALL AND MUST vacate eir office. Redundant. A common construction is CAN action, and SHALL do so as soon as possible. E shall then create in eir possession a number of shares with the stock symbol ofthe company they formed such that the total number of shares with that symbol is 100 and one member owns no more than 1 more than another member (33 + 33 + 34 = 100). There should be an e.g. in there. In the event of two or more players owning the same number of shares the player with the first player name in alphabetical order who owns that number of shares with that symbol is deemed to hold more shares. Real name? First or last? Nickname? Nicknames are changeable. 23. A Board of Directors may request a stock split with SEC support, by announcing eir intention to do so and specifying a multiple of 0.1 between 0 and 2. Inclusive? The President shall then specify a Random integer between 0 and 100 Ditto.
Re: DIS: New Forum?
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 5:05 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would you consider the creation of a new discussion forum, the Agora-Contests (or -Contracts) forum? I would create such a forum if the accompanying rule passed. I would vote against the creation of such rule, however. -- Eris [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
Re: DIS: RE: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Partnerships
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 8:34 AM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That inserts one of the paradox escalation holes that I've just been trying to get rid of, but I like the principle. (If a contract is set up so that it's ambiguous or paradoxical whether it meets the requirements, that's a Win by Paradox right there.) Only if 3 people don't object. -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
DIS: Re: BUS: Reformed Bank of Agora
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: It is customary to allow a scamster to retain the fruit of eir scam. In my opinion comex should be allowed to keep the crops that he robbed from the bank. Custom is for either a permanent memento (e.g. patent title) or a minor competitive advantage (a few crops) but not contest-destabilizing quantity... otherwise it's boring to play through for everyone, might as well just offer the win through proposal and reset everything. (Not saying what e's got is destabilizing, I dunno if it is, just pointing out the principle). -Goethe
RE: DIS: RE: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Partnerships
Taral wrote: On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 8:34 AM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That inserts one of the paradox escalation holes that I've just been trying to get rid of, but I like the principle. (If a contract is set up so that it's ambiguous or paradoxical whether it meets the requirements, that's a Win by Paradox right there.) Only if 3 people don't object. Wrong, it would be possible to file a CFJ like I CAN make such and such a contract a partnership without 3 objections. That would escalate the paradox from the contract onto the result of the CFJ, allowing a win by paradox. -- ais523 winmail.dat
Re: DIS: Proto: Emergency exit
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: Goethe wrote: Solutions proposed: 1. judicially declare all actions performed by annabel to be (retroactively) ineffective because, in retrospect, the messages didn't constitute clear communication as to whom they applied to (I still think this would have and did work, hence no crisis, but this was a minority view). I don't remember this being brought up. It would have required recalculating the gamestate to account for the removal of Annabel's purported actions, except that #3 later patched over it. I remember someone doing a brief analysis that Annabel never voted or proposed (taking Maud's word for it) and everything else e did involved currencies which were repealed at crisis time. Point being, it didn't break the proposal system so you could jump straight to #3. The whole concept was swirling in the gratuitous arguments. I don't think a single actual CFJ was called out of the mess (maybe because of possible CotC ID crises, or did I miss one?) so the whole thing came down to whose gratuitous arguments were listened to the most. This idea was one that I really liked (don't remember who first suggested it) but it was pretty much ignored in favor of those who jumped right to #2 being needed... we didn't have a strong set of precedents on clear communication back then, anyway. Still, #3 would have made the camps believing in #1 happy so it's ok. :) -Goethe
DIS: Fwd: Large messages
Poll: How would you prefer your large messages: in multiple parts, or as a URL? I suspect I'm going to get a lot of not at all answers, what with the whole I make 10,000 CFJs thing. But then again, what fun is that? Some of the best scams arise when something perfectly normal is taken out of proportion. Such as partnerships requesting subsidzation (I'm glad nobody did *that* one). And, believe it or not, if I had been able to make 10,000 CFJs by saying so, and Zefram hadn't given them a linked assignment, we might have had a truly interesting situation where players were overflowing with Blue VCs, so VLOPs could be increased much more easily. Oh, and if it would be possible to make 46 Mr. Monopoly contracts without restating the contract's text every single time, I could avoid large messages much more easily. But then again, that's not game custom, is it? -- Forwarded message -- From: Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Jun 18, 2008 1:57 PM Subject: Large messages To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Okay, that's the *last* oversize message I'm approving. This is your notice that further messages over 40KB will get rejected unless you let me know first. -- Eris [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
Re: DIS: proto Stock Market
not a proposal but when it is Murphy is Co-Author, anything else I overlooked? Stock Market V 2 Agoran Stock Market 1. This contract is known as the Agoran Stock Market. 2. This contract creates a currency known as Stock Market Dollars or SMDs. 3. A stock symbol is a string of one to five characters each of which is a member of the set of letters in the English alphabet. 4. For each stock symbol, symbol shares is a currency. 5. This contract defines a position called SEC member, when a player joins this contract if there are fewer than five SEC member e becomes a SEC member. 6. SEC support means with the support of a majority of SEC members. 7. A member of this contract may make another member a SEC member with support of a majority of members of this contract. 8. This contract defines the role of SEC President. A SEC member may make another SEC member SEC President with SEC support if and only if the player who would be SEC President is capable of serving as a contestmaster. If a player becomes an SEC member and there is no SEC President e becomes SEC President. 9. There can be only one SEC President at any time. If a player is made SEC president while another is already SEC President, the player who has been SEC President the longest is no longer SEC President. 10. An SEC member may change this contract with SEC support. No player may change this contract otherwise. 11. If the SEC President is incapable of serving as contestmaster e CAN and SHALL vacate the role and positions of SEC President and SEC member. 12. Upon their being 10 members to this contract the SEC President CAN and SHALL turn this contract into a contest. 13. The SEC President shall serve as recordkeeper of stocks, and SMDs. 14. A company may be formed by 3 members of this contract with SEC support by announcing eir intent to do so along with a company name, and a stock symbol which is not claimed by another company. When a company is formed the SEC President CAN and SHALL remove from each member's who formed the company possession a number of SMDs equal to the number of SMDs in eir possession multiplied by 0.5. E shall then create in each of eir possession a number of symbol stocks such that the total number of symbol stocks is 100 and no player who formed the company owns two more than any other player who formed the company (e.g. 33 + 33 + 34 = 100 and 33 = 33, and 34 - 33 = 1 so all conditions would be met). The players who formed the company are designated Director of symbol. 15. Support of symbol means support of all players with the position Director of symbol and is synonymous with symbol support. 16. This contract defines the role of Stock Broker, the stock broker is the RecordKeeper of BUY ORDERS and SELL ORDERS. If a player joins this contract and e does not immediately become the SEC President and there is no Stock Broker, e becomes the Stock Broker. If the Stock Broker becomes the SEC President e vacates the role of Stock Broker and the SEC member who has been an SEC member the longest, excluding the SEC President, becomes the Stock Broker. 17. A Directory of symbol may with symbol support and SEC support may request Distribution of Dividends by announcing eir intention to do so. The SEC President then CAN and SHALL pick a random positive integer between 1 and 100 inclusive and inform all SEC members and all Directors of symbol of the number e picked. E shall then in the possession of each member of this contract create a number of SMDs equal to the number of symbol stocks that member owns multiplied by the number e picked and divided by 100. 18. A Director of symbol may with symbol support and SEC support request a Stock Split by announcing eir intention to do so and a positive real number between 0.1 and 2 inclusive. The SEC President shall then in the possession of each member of this contract create or destroy a number of symbol stocks such that the member now owns X * Y stocks where X is the number e owned before this action and Y is the number specified by the board of directors. 19. When this contract is a contest a player may request conversion of a number of points, not to exceed two, or a number of SMDs. The SEC President shall then in that players possession destroy the requested number of points or SMDs and award or create the required number of points or SMDs such that a player who had points revoked gains SMDs and a player who had SMDs destroyed gains points both according to the ratio defined in this contract. 20. The ratio of points to SMDs is 2:100. 21. A player may with SEC support replace another player as Director of symbol if e owns more symbol stocks than the player e wishes to replace. 22. A player may have a BUY ORDER recorded by the Stock Broker by announcement that e is placing a BUY ORDER. The announcement must contain the number of SMDs e is willing to trade per symbol stock and the number of symbol stocks e wants. 23. A player may have a SELL ORDER recorded by the Stock
Re: DIS: Fwd: Large messages
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, comex wrote: Poll: How would you prefer your large messages: in multiple parts, or as a URL? Weren't URL's judged against in your object/I support picture? Anyway, don't worry about message length, worry about number of actions some poor recordkeepor has to note or make. Maybe, a kindness would be to make a pseudo-report of this is the state of these records at the end of my scam if the scam worked. I did two scams by large emails. In one I drained the deck of cards like you drained the bank: http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2004-May/002849.html but I was the recordkeepor and in fact the scam tested (and was found when I was creating) my automation methods. The other one was a failure: http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2005-April/003985.html but only required the action of the promotor at distributing one very very long proposal. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Fwd: Large messages
comex wrote:
Oh, and if it would be possible to make 46 Mr. Monopoly contracts
without restating the contract's text every single time, I could avoid
large messages much more easily. But then again, that's not game
custom, is it?
Game custom holds that locally defined abbreviations are
R754-unambiguous, so you could have done this:
For the purpose of this message, whenever I make a contract with the
AFO, its text is {{{
1. This public contract (which becomes a public contract when it
forms) is called $NAME. Parties to this contract are called
Monies.
2. $NAME is a partnership. Monies CAN and SHALL act on
behalf of it to satisfy its legal obligations, which $NAME
devolves onto them.
3. Any Money may amend, terminate, or act on behalf of $NAME
by announcement.
}}} but with each instance of $NAME replaced by its name.
I make a contract with the AFO named Mr. Monopoly 1.
Re: DIS: Fwd: Large messages
Goethe wrote: In one I drained the deck of cards like you drained the bank: http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2004-May/002849.html but I was the recordkeepor and in fact the scam tested (and was found when I was creating) my automation methods. which involved several instances of As required to satisfy a pending draw, I transfer a random card from the deck to Goethe, which is It's a Surprise! Was the deck otherwise empty at this point? The other one was a failure: http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2005-April/003985.html but only required the action of the promotor at distributing one very very long proposal. To save everyone some time, this would have snuck a not into Rule 1726, thus allowing any two Senators to block any proposal (by ending its voting period before quorum was reached). IIRC everything else was just moving around whitespace. There have been at least three other scams involving volume of text: * I snuck a Murphy wins clause into the middle of a give names to all Crimes and Infractions lacking them proposal. It didn't pass. * Crito submitted hundreds of Crito wins proposals. They all failed, but due to IIRC a pay-to-vote system in use at the time, most of them failed with zero votes and thus triggered a win condition (identical FOR/AGAINST/ABSTAIN counts on three of your proposals in a row). * Then-distributor Steve arranged for someone to forward a spam to the PF; e intercepted it, inserted a proposal about 200 lines down, then let it go. This one isn't in the CotC DB yet, but the AWJ does mention it; here's a copy of the raw file. In order to assist CotC Wes with his reconstruction of the Appeal of CFJ 1125, here's a repost of former CotC Blob's original distribution of the Appeal of CFJ 1125 on Tue, 8 Jun 1999 14:35:02 +1000. This message is available from egroups.com: it is message 801 in the agora-official archive. I agree that the search engine is not very helpful, though: I searched for CFJ 1125 and came up with no matches. == CFJ 1125 Rule 1883 has not been repealed. == Called by: Blob Judge: Crito Judgement: TRUE Judgement Appealed Board of Appeals:Blob (S), Steve (pro-J), Michael (pro-C) Decisions of Justices: pro-Justiciar Steve: Speaker Blob: pro-CotC Michael: Justice selction: Eligible:Beefurabi, elJefe, Elysion, harvel, Kolja, Lee, Michael, Morendil, Murphy, Peekee, Steve, Vlad, Wes Already served: Blob, Crito On Hold: Chuck, Oerjan Initial Judge selection: Eligible:Crito, Steve, David Not eligible: Caller: Blob Barred: - Had their turn: Ørjan, Blob, Murphy, Peekee, Vlad, Kolja A., elJefe, Michael, Morendil, Elysion Already served: - Defaulted: - By request: - On Hold: - == History: Called by Blob: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 14:47:20 +1000 Assigned to Crito: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 09:59:18 +0200 Judged TRUE by Crito: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 22:46:07 -0400 Appealed by Steve: Sat, 1 May 1999 13:24:37 +1000 Judgement published:Thu, 6 May 1999 15:24:16 +0200 Appealed by elJefe: Tue, 11 May 1999 22:57:41 -0400 Appealed by Kolja: Sun, 30 May 1999 20:09:16 +0200 Appeal initiated: Sun, 30 May 1999 20:09:16 +0200 Assigned to Blob, Steve, Michael: as of this message == Speaker's Arguments: == pro-Justiciar's Arguments: == pro-CotC's Arguments: == Judge's Arguments: Well, time is running short, so it's time to call the Court into session. I hereby enter a judgement of TRUE. Reasoning: Issue 1 - clear indication First, I wish to express my thanks to all those who participated in the recent (and enjoyable) debate, for their assistance in helping me clarify my thoughts on this subject. Throughout the recent debate I had been focusing my attention on the definition of clear wrt R1483, and it seemed to me that it was a toss-up as to whether clear must apply to the entire message or only to the imbedded statement of intent to propose. Ultimately, however, I was persuaded that this judgement hinged more upon the meaning of indication. The message can be divided as follows: A large
DIS: Re: BUS: Bank run
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 17 June 2008 9:27:14 comex wrote: scam I initiate a criminal CFJ against comex. E violated rule 1742 by violating the requirements of several of the Mr. Monopoly and Rich Uncle Pennybags series of partnerships to act on those partnerships' behalves to satisfy their legal obligations; specifically, e caused the relevant contracts (those whose actions did not fail) to violate R1742 by breaching the terms of the Bank of Agora contract, which required them to act in good faith, keeping in mind that the Bank of Agora's holdings belong to those people who have pens, not the Bankers. That these actions were not in good faith is evidenced by comex's summary of eir Rich Uncle Pennybags message to eir Mr. Monopoly message as follows: On 6/17/08, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: scam As evidence I include by reference comex's messages [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED], the text of the Bank of Agora contract, and rule 1742. [Yes, we do traditionally reward scams, but the BoA contract specifically outlawed them. The text takes precedence.] Pavitra That text wasn't in the BOA yet, was it?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bank run
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 5:03 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That text wasn't in the BOA yet, was it? The good faith clause has been in the BOA agreement from the beginning
Re: DIS: Fwd: Large messages
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, comex wrote: Poll: How would you prefer your large messages: in multiple parts, or as a URL? Weren't URL's judged against in your object/I support picture? If I just post a URL, especially a URL of a Flash video, it is not equivalent to taking the actions which may be viewed at the URL. But I suspect that I can take actions through a URL not under my control (i.e. it will say the same thing each time it is accessed) which serves plain text (HTML by default, but you can add /raw/) as long as I explicitly say so.
Re: DIS: Fwd: Large messages
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: which involved several instances of As required to satisfy a pending draw, I transfer a random card from the deck to Goethe, which is It's a Surprise! Was the deck otherwise empty at this point? Yah, it was a bootup issue because the cards were not created by the proposal but left for the Deckmastor to create into an empty deck: 09 REM BOOTUP 10 Create It's a surprise (gain 2 draws) in the empty deck. 15 Give self a draw (of N per week allowed for any player). 20 Deal It's a surprise to self from deck (random choice 1 out of 1). 29 REM MAIN LOOP 30 Play It's a Surprise gain 2 draws returning it to the Deck. 40 Create another card in deck. 50 Deal It's a surprise and other card to self (only 2 random choices). 55 If Hand=Full give some cards to co-conspirators. 60 GOTO 30 -Goethe
Re: DIS: Fwd: Large messages
comex wrote: On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, comex wrote: Poll: How would you prefer your large messages: in multiple parts, or as a URL? Weren't URL's judged against in your object/I support picture? If I just post a URL, especially a URL of a Flash video, it is not equivalent to taking the actions which may be viewed at the URL. But I suspect that I can take actions through a URL not under my control (i.e. it will say the same thing each time it is accessed) which serves plain text (HTML by default, but you can add /raw/) as long as I explicitly say so. IIRC, the URL was posted without comment. Had you explicitly said I take the actions available at URL, it would probably be effective (but frowned upon (but someone would probably end up posting a suitable plaintext summary to the list)).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bank run
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 17 June 2008 10:44:05 Quazie wrote:
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.
I retract my criminal CFJ against comex.
P.S. Don't always listen to my aligations, I now believe all of that happened.
DIS: Re: BUS: Voting
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Chester Mealer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If possible, I submit the following votes. If one or more votes is not possible for me to submit, I submit those votes which are possible. You know, on ordinary proposals (I believe Zefram's distributions have a column with Os and Ds in it, for ordinary and democratic), you can vote a number of times equal to your EVLOD, which is 4 by default. --Ivan Hope CXXVII, who still has an EVLOD of 4
Re: DIS: Fwd: Large messages
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: sender (though a posted transcription might be a compromise if there was no debate on content and at least one witness reasonably close to the time of announcement). -Goethe What's to prevent someone from posting a URL that displays different text to different players? Hence the no debate on content part. -Goethe
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2017 assigned to root
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 12:43 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I change myself to This contract is a pledge. The parties to this contract SHALL ensure that it fulfills its obligations. Any party to this contract can leave it by announcement. I agree to myself. ISIDTID?
Re: DIS: proto Stock Market
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Chester Mealer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: another idea, clearly not a proposal yet Agoran Stock Market 1. This contract is known as the Agoran Stock Market. 2. This contract creates a currency known as SMDs which are fungible. 3. This contract creates a currency known as shares which contain a stock symbol. 4. A stock symbol is a string of one to five alphanumeric characters. 5. Shares with the same stock symbol are fungible. 6. Shares with different stock symbols are not fungible. 7. Shares, and SMDs may only be created, destroyed, and echanged, according to the terms of this contract. 8. There shall be five offices, under this contract, known as SEC Members. These offices shall be imposed upon the first five players to join this contract. 9. Any player may join this contract by announcing eir intent to do so. 10. SEC support means a vote in which at least 3 of the SEC members voted FOR the proposal. 11. Any SEC member may change this contract with SEC support. 12. No player who is not holding an office of SEC member may change this contract. 13. The first player to join the SEC also holds the office of SEC President. 14. The SEC President shall vacate the office if e is not able to be a contest master for this contract should it become a contest. 15. Upon 10 players joining this contract the SEC President shall change this contract into a contest with emself as contest master. 16. If the office of SEC President is vacant the set of players who hold the office of SEC member shall elect from emselves a player to be SEC President who is capable of serving as contestmaster. 17. If no SEC member is capable of serving as constestmaster, the player who has been an SEC member the longest SHALL AND MUST vacate eir office. 18. If an office of SEC member is vacant the players who have joined this contract shall elect from emselves a player to that office who is capable of serving as contest master. 19. The SEC President shall serve as record keeper of shares, SMDs, and Companies. 20. A company may be formed by three members of this contract with SEC support by announcing eir intention to form the company, the company name, and the company stock symbol. 21. A company may only have one stock symbol, and may not use a stock symbol already owned by another company. 22. When a company is formed, the SEC President shall destroy a number of SMDs in the possession of each player forming the company equal to the number of SMDs they own multiplied by 0.5. E shall then create in eir possession a number of shares with the stock symbol ofthe company they formed such that the total number of shares with that symbol is 100 and one member owns no more than 1 more than another member (33 + 33 + 34 = 100). The three members who created the company become known as its board of directors. Thereafer the board of directors for the company are the three members who own the most shares. In the event of two or more players owning the same number of shares the player with the first player name in alphabetical order who owns that number of shares with that symbol is deemed to hold more shares. 23. A Board of Directors may request a stock split with SEC support, by announcing eir intention to do so and specifying a multiple of 0.1 between 0 and 2. The SEC President shall then create in the possession of each member to this contract a number of shares equal to X times the multiple specified by the company's board of Directors, where X is the number of shares that have the companies stock symbol which that player already owned. 24. A board of directors may request a distribution of dividents with SEC support by announcing eir intention to do so. The President shall then specify a Random integer between 0 and 100 and shall create in the possession of each member of this contract a number of SMDs equal to X * Y / 100 where Y is the number specified by the President. The SEC President shall specify the random number exactly once per approved request. 25. A player may request a conversion between then SMDs and points with SEC approval by announcing eir intent to convert a certain number of points or a certain number of SMDs. The SEC President shall then destroy that number of points or SMDs and create or award a number of points or SMDs according to the ratio specified in this contract. 26. The ratio of points to SMDs is 2:100. 27. A player may announce a desire to exchange a number of SMDs for shares with a given symbol by posting a message containing eir name the word BUY in capital letters, the symbol they want the shares to have, and the amount of SMDs they are willing to exchange. The player posting the message shall be the recordkeepor of eir own desire to exchange SMDs for shares. 28. A player may
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2017 assigned to root
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 8:01 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 12:43 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I change myself to This contract is a pledge. The parties to this contract SHALL ensure that it fulfills its obligations. Any party to this contract can leave it by announcement. I agree to myself. ISIDTID? It's an unregulated action, so I have the right to take it. I believe precedent is that generally, if I have the right to do something, but the rules provide no mechanism for it (and it's of the fictional type), I can do it by announcement. --Ivan Hope CXXVII
Re: DIS: proto Stock Market
5. This contract defines a position called SEC member, when a player joins this contract if there are fewer than five SEC member e becomes a SEC member. I don't like this part. I'd definitely prefer a system where *everyone* has a say rather than it being a race to become an SEC member. snip 14. A company may be formed by 3 members of this contract with SEC support by announcing eir intent to do so along with a company name, and a stock symbol which is not claimed by another company. When a company is formed the SEC President CAN and SHALL remove from each member's who formed the company possession a number of SMDs equal to the number of SMDs in eir possession multiplied by 0.5. E shall then create in each of eir possession a number of symbol stocks such that the total number of symbol stocks is 100 and no player who formed the company owns two more than any other player who formed the company (e.g. 33 + 33 + 34 = 100 and 33 = 33, and 34 - 33 = 1 so all conditions would be met). The players who formed the company are designated Director of symbol. Why not say it more simply and just state, The SEC President SHALL remove from each founder's possession half of eir SMDs. Also, I don't particularly like this part; instead, there should be some other benefit for putting up more money, like increased initial stock value. I also don't see why it must be that you need exactly three people to form a company, despite this board of directors stuff. It would, IMO, be better if a single person or a group of any number of people could form a company and then decide their own organizational structure for it, rather than dictating this stuff through the contract. In fact, it seems to me like a partnership or other type of contract should be able to become a company by announcement. Really, I don't see the point of any of this except that: 1) You have to invest money to start a company, and 2) You get 100 shares of this company divided evenly (rounding as little as possible) among the founders. Instead, the *company* (a contract, like I suggested) should receive 100 shares and be able to divide them as it pleases. I do like the idea of a stock exchange, but it needs some work. Really, I prefer leaving organization to the companies themselves (through contracts) and then having this only manage the investment part. A member to this contract should be able to invest and receive shares through this contract, but requiring a board of directors for a company seems like it's going too far. I think you should rewrite this contract specifying that a company is a partnership specifying that it is so (though it also would be nice to have companies run by only one person, so think about that as well) and only handle the investment part of it through this contract. Hopefully that would work out nicely. avpx
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1995 judged INNOCENT, 2004 judged UNIMPUGNED by OscarMeyr
On Jun 18, 2008, at 8:46 PM, ihope wrote: On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 8:37 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I initiate a criminal case against OscarMeyr for violating rule 2158 by judging INNOCENT on CFJ 1995. I'm glad this already got withdrawn. Do we seriously need a Rule prohibiting criminal CFJs against CFJ judges' decisions? Wouldn't the way to do this be repealing rule 2158, not prohibiting initiating a CFJ for violating it? We need to rewrite this sentence from R2158: A judge SHALL NOT assign an inappropriate judgement to any judicial question. The intent here is to make sure that a judge does eir duty diligently and does not blatantly misrule on a case. However, this has been used against Goethe and (withdrawn) myself, when appealing the ruling is a far better way to change the CFJ decision. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: proto Stock Market
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Nick Vanderweit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do like the idea of a stock exchange, but it needs some work.
Really, I prefer leaving organization to the companies themselves
(through contracts) and then having this only manage the investment
part.
The Bank of Agora was corporation-like. The board of directors
consisted of all Bankers, and the shares of stock were pens. People
with at least 10% of all pens, with one vote per person, was deemed a
good-enough approximation of one vote per pen, which would have
required more complexity. There isn't all that much need for a
separate stock market system; the rules can already do it all.
{The name of this contract is The Corporation. This is a public
contract. Parties to this contract SHALL ensure it fulfills all its
obligations.
Shares of stock (shares, for short) are a currency. Ownership of
shares is restricted to players.
This contract can be amended with the majority consent of all shares,
where a share is considered to consent if its owner consents.}
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
Re: DIS: proto Stock Market
Ivan Hope wrote:
{The name of this contract is The Corporation. This is a public
contract. Parties to this contract SHALL ensure it fulfills all its
obligations.
Shares of stock (shares, for short) are a currency. Ownership of
shares is restricted to players.
This contract can be amended with the majority consent of all shares,
where a share is considered to consent if its owner consents.}
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2007-May/006393.html
DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Decriminalization
On Jun 18, 2008, at 9:24 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: Proto-Proposal: Decriminalization (AI = 2, please) Create a rule titled Decriminalization with Power 2 and this text: If a rule defines a method of breaching it as decriminalized, then no person SHALL initiate a criminal case alleging that that rule has been breached by that method, unless the defendant intended to breach it by that method by performing the alleged action. There's potential here for recursion -- file a criminal case over R2158, then counter-file a criminal case over Decriminalization. How about this instead? If a rule defines a method of breaching it as decriminalized, then a judgement of UNIMPUGNED shall be appropriate for a criminal case alleging that that rule has been breached by that method when the defendant did not demonstrate a clear intent to breach that rule by performing the alleged action. And how DO you get the rule paragraph margins properly double-indented? - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1966 judged TRUE by Pavitra
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let's make this official, as I haven't seen any further discussion on this point in the past two days. With the consent of the rest of the appeal panel in CFJ 1966c, I intend to cause the panel to rule OVERRULE with a new judgment of FALSE. Goethe's gratuitous arguments in the original CFJ are valid; mucking with the ruleset by fiat is highly against Agoran practice. Please, if you're going to change rules by fiat, first conduct a scam that changes the rules to explicitly give you that power. Just because the rules ought not to be changeable by fiat doesn't mean they aren't, and although I would not mind a judgement of FALSE with a few good solid convincing arguments, OscarMeyr's judgement does not contain any, even if e said please. OscarMeyr, if you OVERRULE this, I will initiate a new CFJ on the same statement, and if it turns out TRUE for any reason, I will initiate a Rule 911 case against you for making this judgement. Specifically, the gratutious arguments that you cite are basically to the effect that it's ambiguous, and Goethe later said On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 12:46 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ps. FWIW, despite my earlier posts, the Rules != Contract camp have convinced me that the R101 preamble is broken in that binding agreements no longer refer to the rules, so for my part it's the CAN question that's the big debate. I repeat, I (seriously this time) will accept a judgement of FALSE, but I kind of dislike the sort of judgement that considers the case as obviously FALSE as previous judges have considered it obviously TRUE. Especially when it's unappealable.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Decriminalization
OscarMeyr wrote: There's potential here for recursion -- file a criminal case over R2158, then counter-file a criminal case over Decriminalization. That's the whole point. And how DO you get the rule paragraph margins properly double-indented? Hmm?
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 8:56 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I STILL don't recall seeing an apology for CFJ 1942, and I see nothing in the business archive at agoranomic from comex indicating otherwise. Would someone please verify my memory, lest I file a trivially INNOCENT criminal CFJ. Forgot about this. I'll do it tomorrow.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Decriminalization
On Jun 18, 2008, at 10:19 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: OscarMeyr wrote: There's potential here for recursion -- file a criminal case over R2158, then counter-file a criminal case over Decriminalization. That's the whole point. Well okay, if you want to make that a feature. And how DO you get the rule paragraph margins properly double- indented? Hmm? Your email has the proposed rule in proper Agoran formatting with the left margin indented, and the right margin wrapping at the proper column. There's probably some formatting elements in my mail program that can do the same thing. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Decriminalization
OscarMeyr wrote: On Jun 18, 2008, at 10:19 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: OscarMeyr wrote: There's potential here for recursion -- file a criminal case over R2158, then counter-file a criminal case over Decriminalization. That's the whole point. Well okay, if you want to make that a feature. Yeah, the idea is to escalate from you SHOULD NOT try to ding a judge for a good-faith error but you SHALL NOT try etc.. And how DO you get the rule paragraph margins properly double- indented? Hmm? Your email has the proposed rule in proper Agoran formatting with the left margin indented, and the right margin wrapping at the proper column. There's probably some formatting elements in my mail program that can do the same thing. Right margin is standard, left margin is me doing it manually (usually starting by copy+pasting from the ruleset).
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2017 assigned to root
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:43 AM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: E changed his text to something that devolved his obligations onto his parties, this being an unregulated action. Presumedly, agreeing to something is the same as agreeing to its text; therefore, these people agreeing to ehird's text were agreeing to him, making him a contract and a partnership. (Also, presumedly, he was not a contract before he changed his text, which is a reasonable presumption.) I change my text to whatever is either ambiguous (my text of what?) or just nonsense. Biological persons do not inherently have a text property that can be changed. On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 6:30 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's an unregulated action, so I have the right to take it. I believe precedent is that generally, if I have the right to do something, but the rules provide no mechanism for it (and it's of the fictional type), I can do it by announcement. CFJ 1955 did not actually establish that precedent, though. Judge Goethe found that R101 guarantees the ability by announcement to initiate a formal process to resolve matters of controversy, to refuse to become party to a binding agreement, and to deregister rather than continue to play. The judgement did not delve into whether R101 guarantees the ability to perform any arbitrary unregulated actions by announcement, apart from noting that it cannot work for all such actions. Even if it works for actions that are legal fictions defined by the rules, there's no reason to suppose that it should work for arbitrary fictional actions made up off the top of somebody's head, since these aren't even actions in any Agoran sense. -root
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2017 assigned to root
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: Even if it works for actions that are legal fictions defined by the rules, there's no reason to suppose that it should work for arbitrary fictional actions made up off the top of somebody's head, since these aren't even actions in any Agoran sense. This sounds an awful lot like the deem discussion of early 2007. Deem. That's a good word. Like moot. Moot, meet deem. Deem, meet moot. mootiddy deem deem deemdiddy moot. Deem deems deem moot, moot moots moot.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1966 judged TRUE by Pavitra
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, comex wrote: On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let's make this official, as I haven't seen any further discussion on this point in the past two days. With the consent of the rest of the appeal panel in CFJ 1966c, I intend to cause the panel to rule OVERRULE with a new judgment of FALSE. Goethe's gratuitous arguments in the original CFJ are valid; mucking with the ruleset by fiat is highly against Agoran practice. Please, if you're going to change rules by fiat, first conduct a scam that changes the rules to explicitly give you that power. Just because the rules ought not to be changeable by fiat doesn't mean they aren't, and although I would not mind a judgement of FALSE with a few good solid convincing arguments, OscarMeyr's judgement does not contain any, even if e said please. OscarMeyr, if you OVERRULE this, I will initiate a new CFJ on the same statement, and if it turns out TRUE for any reason, I will initiate a Rule 911 case against you for making this judgement. Specifically, the gratutious arguments that you cite are basically to the effect that it's ambiguous, and Goethe later said On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 12:46 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ps. FWIW, despite my earlier posts, the Rules != Contract camp have convinced me that the R101 preamble is broken in that binding agreements no longer refer to the rules, so for my part it's the CAN question that's the big debate. I repeat, I (seriously this time) will accept a judgement of FALSE, but I kind of dislike the sort of judgement that considers the case as obviously FALSE as previous judges have considered it obviously TRUE. Especially when it's unappealable. FWIW, I kinda pretty much agree with comex here. Some better gratuity to hang a hat on at the bottom of this message about assume to exist in R101: http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2008-June/015790.html though comex's counter-riposte: http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2008-June/015813.html is worth considering too. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1995 judged INNOCENT, 2004 judged UNIMPUGNED by OscarMeyr
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 6:51 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We need to rewrite this sentence from R2158: A judge SHALL NOT assign an inappropriate judgement to any judicial question. The intent here is to make sure that a judge does eir duty diligently and does not blatantly misrule on a case. However, this has been used against Goethe and (withdrawn) myself, when appealing the ruling is a far better way to change the CFJ decision. How about we make a criminal case alleging judicial misconduct require three support? -root
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2017 assigned to root
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote: CFJs 1615-1616. Nutshell: If you claim you are something you're not (I am an avacado!) the courts can use common-sense evidence to find the claim factually false, even if making the claim is unregulated or strictly-speaking rules-irrelevant. Important corrollary: in addition to claiming to be something this extends to announcing that you actively make yourself into something. -G.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2017 assigned to root
Goethe wrote: On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: Even if it works for actions that are legal fictions defined by the rules, there's no reason to suppose that it should work for arbitrary fictional actions made up off the top of somebody's head, since these aren't even actions in any Agoran sense. This sounds an awful lot like the deem discussion of early 2007. Deem. That's a good word. Like moot. Moot, meet deem. Deem, meet moot. mootiddy deem deem deemdiddy moot. Deem deems deem moot, moot moots moot. Smock!
