On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> Warrigal wrote:
>> The negation of SHALL is NEED NOT, not SHALL NOT. Not that NEED NOT is
>> actually defined by MMI.
>
> I suspect we need it rarely enough that we can get away with "So-and-so
> MAY choose whether or not to foo."
>
NEED NOT is the A
Warrigal wrote:
> The negation of SHALL is NEED NOT, not SHALL NOT. Not that NEED NOT is
> actually defined by MMI.
To preserve the literalness of the NOT phrases, it should be MAY NOT.
That's confusing though.
Perhaps... "MAY not"? "MAY OR MAY NOT"? "MAY or not?"
bah.
I suspect we need it ra
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> The provision about rests is unnecessary; as the Agora Corporation is a
> second-class person.
Indeed. Let's make it "Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the
voting limit of Agora Corporation on an ordinary decision is 8, if no
member of its
The point?
On 2009-03-16, Warrigal wrote:
> I venture the following proposal, titled "Agora Corporation", with
> adoption index 2:
>
> {Create a rule, titled "Agora Corporation", with power 2:
>
> {There is a person known as Agora Corporation. Agora Corporation
> consists of a text, and CAN act a
Warrigal wrote:
> I venture the following proposal, titled "Agora Corporation", with
> adoption index 2:
>
> {Create a rule, titled "Agora Corporation", with power 2:
>
> {There is a person known as Agora Corporation. Agora Corporation
> consists of a text, and CAN act as its text allows. Agora
>
I venture the following proposal, titled "Agora Corporation", with
adoption index 2:
{Create a rule, titled "Agora Corporation", with power 2:
{There is a person known as Agora Corporation. Agora Corporation
consists of a text, and CAN act as its text allows. Agora
Corporation's text can also mod
On 2009-03-16, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I join the Vote Market.
>
It does not exist
> I intend, without three objections, to amend the Vote Market as follows
> in four days:
>
> {{
> Change section 2 to read
> {The Broker is responsible for maintaining the Vote Market. The Broker
> is coppro.}
> }}
>
Sean Hunt wrote:
> I join the Vote Market.
>
> I intend, without three objections, to amend the Vote Market as follows
> in four days:
>
> {{
> Change section 2 to read
> {The Broker is responsible for maintaining the Vote Market. The Broker
> is coppro.}
> }}
Hrm, I forgot another amendment. And
Ed Murphy wrote:
> comex wrote:
>
>> Amend Rule 2223 (Win by Junta) by replacing:
>>
>> When a rule comes to state that one or more persons CAN cause it
>> to make arbitrary rule changes by announcement, all those
>> persons satisfy the Winning Condition of Dictatorship.
>>
>> wi
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>> While we've found that SHALL -> CAN, we haven't found that SHALL NOT ->
>> CANNOT. In fact, accepting that SHALL NOT -> CANNOT would probably
>> break a lot of things.
>
> It seems to me (based on a dusty recollection of formal logic) th
comex wrote:
> Amend Rule 2223 (Win by Junta) by replacing:
>
> When a rule comes to state that one or more persons CAN cause it
> to make arbitrary rule changes by announcement, all those
> persons satisfy the Winning Condition of Dictatorship.
>
> with:
>
> Upon a win
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
> > Yally wrote:
> >
> >> 6147 O 1 1.0 coppro Report Accessibility
> >> AGAINST
> >
> > Ineffective, your caste is still Savage.
>
> According to the most recent report issued by the Grand Poobah, only
> ais523 has
Ed Murphy wrote:
> Yally wrote:
>
>> 6147 O 1 1.0 coppro Report Accessibility
>> AGAINST
>
> Ineffective, your caste is still Savage.
According to the most recent report issued by the Grand Poobah, only
ais523 has a caste of Savage, and I can't recall reading anything in the
interim
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
> CFJ: Spent assets are destroyed, unless they are specified as being
> transferred to a different owner than their previous owner.
It might be worse than this. The rules in various places say players
CAN spend, but never how or with what mechanism. By ann
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Is it that clear cut that the particular win rule works in the instant
>> only? I generally find "When a rule comes to..." to be pretty close to
>> "When it has come to pass that..." which lasts as long a
Goethe wrote:
> How did all these folks get down to Savage, I thought the win reset
> put all first-class players to epsilon? -G.
*looks* Damn, you're right - R2134 resets everyone's caste, not just
the winner's. For my own later reference, here are the votes affected
in the current batch; som
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I spend C F# in Sgeo's possession to destroy one Rest in Taral's
> possession.
Interesting. But counter-argument: as the word 'spend' is not
explicitly defined, we use the ordinary-language definition which
strongly implies that you can only sp
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Is it that clear cut that the particular win rule works in the instant
> only? I generally find "When a rule comes to..." to be pretty close to
> "When it has come to pass that..." which lasts as long as the text is in
> the rules. Wrong abo
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> This is a win announcement stating that Murphy, Goethe, and OscarMeyr
> satisfy the Winning Condition of Dictatorship.
> Goethe
Heh. I suppose an agreement not to reveal a certain scam isn't
necessarily unique.
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> A win announcement is not required for a Win by Junta; instead, the
>> winning condition is satisfied as soon as the rule comes to contain
>> the dictatorship text. Note that this means Murphy did not win
>> because, at the time the rule came to contain th
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I end the voting period for the Conductor election decision.
> Votes for comex: coppro, Yally, Pavitra, OscarMeyr.
> Option selected: comex.
> comex is installed as Conductor.
I'll publish a proto-report as soon as possible.
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
> I nominate myself for Assessor.
Note: I will be out of town for 5 days starting just before this
nomination period ends; delays in starting any resulting election
are not due to favoritism. -Goethe.
> Also, to reduce the risk of
> transcription errors, please say "no vote" instead of snipping
> proposals from the quoted material (as you did with 6142).
Will do.
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Tiger wrote:
>
>>> 6147 O 1 1.0 coppro Report Accessibility
>> FOR
>
> Invalid, your caste is Savage. Also, to reduce the risk of
> transcription errors, please say "no vote" instead of snipping
> proposals from the quoted material (as you did
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> As permitted by the rule created by Proposal 6130, I cause Rule 2223
>> (Win by Junta) to amend itself by appending this paragraph:
>
> This fails because it is unclear whether this is supposed to take
> effe
Tiger wrote:
>> 6147 O 1 1.0 coppro Report Accessibility
> FOR
Invalid, your caste is Savage. Also, to reduce the risk of
transcription errors, please say "no vote" instead of snipping
proposals from the quoted material (as you did with 6142).
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> The ambassador is now gone thanks to the anarchist, but there are
> still rules that define things as his responsibility. How is this
> handled?
One theory is that we have to use a common, dictionary definition of
ambassador. Would anyone who is a me
ehird wrote:
>> 6147 O 1 1.0 coppro        Report Accessibility
> AGAINST
Sure enough, invalid; your caste is Epsilon and you have 5 rests.
Pavitra wrote:
>> 6149 D 1 2.0 ais523 Simpler Notes
> PRESENT, how is this simpler?
IIRC it replaces Keys (modifying what you earn) with Transposition
(modifying what you've already earned). I don't remember what the
other substantive changes are.
Dvorak Herring wrote:
> 6147 O 1 1.0 coppro Report Accessibility
>
> AGAINST
Ineffective, your caste is still Savage.
Yally wrote:
> 6147 O 1 1.0 coppro Report Accessibility
> AGAINST
Ineffective, your caste is still Savage.
The ambassador is now gone thanks to the anarchist, but there are
still rules that define things as his responsibility. How is this
handled?
2009/3/15 :
> As permitted by the rule created by proposal 6130, I cause
> Rule 2223 (Win by Junta) to amend itself to change its text
> to "Any non-player partnership whose basis contains no other
> members but ais523, comex, Goethe, or coppro (but need not
> necessarily contain all those members
I vote the following way, on each proposal a number of times equal to
my voting limit on that proposal
> NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE
> 6140 D 1 2.0 Goethe reward contest activity
FOR
> 6141 D 1 3.0 coppro Fix 754
FOR
> 6143 D 0 2.0 Tiger Subsidy An
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> [This would have blocked e.g. comex's "change the proposal text at the
>> last second" scam. While that specific bug has been fixed, this
>> elevates the fix to prevent such scams generally (other past exa
NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE
6140 D 1 2.0 Goethe reward contest activity
FOR
6141 D 1 3.0 coppro Fix 754
FOR
6142 D 1 3.0 coppro Better SHOULD fix
PRESENT
6143 D 0 2.0 Tiger Subsidy Anarchy
FOR
6144 D 1 3.0 Wooble Faster De
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> [This would have blocked e.g. comex's "change the proposal text at the
>> last second" scam. While that specific bug has been fixed, this
>> elevates the fix to prevent such scams generally (other past exa
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, Alexander Smith wrote:
> Goethe wrote:
>> I submit the following proposal, No choice, no vote AI-3:
> [snip]
>> 4) If there are no valid options for the Decision, instead of
>> initiating the Decision, the IADoP SHALL, in place of initiating
>> the decis
Goethe wrote:
> I submit the following proposal, No choice, no vote AI-3:
[snip]
> 4) If there are no valid options for the Decision, instead of
> initiating the Decision, the IADoP SHALL, in place of initiating
> the decision, announce this fact, ending the election. If
>
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>> Already in R107, although it's pragmatic, not platonic.
>
> So it is in there.
>
>>
>> Before it was moved there, there was no obligation to initiate an
>> Agoran Decision for such elections at all, which I believe it how it
>> should be.
>
>
> Any
OscarMeyr wrote:
> It seems to me (based on a dusty recollection of formal logic) that
> CANNOT -> SHALL NOT, given that SHALL -> CAN.
No, because SHALL NOT and SHALL are not mutually exclusive. For instance,
it is not true that Hillary Rodham Clinton SHALL NOT register; but it is
also not true t
On Mar 15, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Benjamin Schultz
wrote:
It seems to me that having an election period for one candidate is an
unnecessary burden on the IADoP and Agora. So:
AI = 2, II = 1, title = "Single Candidate election"
Amend R2154
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> It seems to me that having an election period for one candidate is an
> unnecessary burden on the IADoP and Agora. So:
>
> AI = 2, II = 1, title = "Single Candidate election"
> Amend R2154 by inserting the following paragraph before the
It seems to me that having an election period for one candidate is an
unnecessary burden on the IADoP and Agora. So:
AI = 2, II = 1, title = "Single Candidate election"
Amend R2154 by inserting the following paragraph before the last
paragraph:
If at any time during the decision period the
On Mar 13, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
== CFJ 2412
==
[snip]
So how does that translate for SHALL->CAN?
Gratuitous addition:
While we've found that SHALL -> CAN, we haven't found th
45 matches
Mail list logo
