Ooops, missed that. Got it.
~ Roujo
On 2013-07-28 10:54 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/07/2013 10:52 PM, Jonathan Rouillard wrote:
Naughtiness (Rule 2356)
---
PVN: 1
Unvirtuous: Fool
By the way, naughtiness no longer exists.
Accepted. I'll clean up that part of the report - I'm doing it manually
right now, but I really should automate it. Sorry about that.
~ Roujo
On 2013-07-29 5:14 AM, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 Jul 2013, at 03:52, Jonathan Rouillard jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
On Jul 26, 2013, at 3:44 PM, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
Ah. My search-fu failed me.
Probably because it was broken over multiple lines.
Proto: The Rulekeepor SHALL publish the entire ruleset as one line.
Curry's paradox hasn't gotten much attention in Agora. It came up in
discussion a couple of times, and in terms of usage in-game, all I found
was someone CFJing a free-floating sentence If this sentence is true,
then I win. That was about 10 years ago.
Well, this isn't a free-floating
As I've been told in the context of Gerontocracy (which, BTW, was lifted
by proposal 7519), the normal Agoran approach is to have fun with the
unexpected new rules, rather than complain about them. But, as I
understand, even though dictatorship isn't unprecedented around here, it
tends to be
I know some of you here advocate a less logicist and more legalist
approach, and I guess this is the bit where you watch the logicians
sweat as Peter Suber would have it. Well, the paradox I present to you
is: how should a legalist rule in a game which has a tradition of
absurd literalism?
On 29/07/2013 5:30 PM, omd wrote:
I suppose it's
appropriate to say that paraconsistent logic isn't an appropriate
answer; unless the rules use language that expect us to work
indirectly to determine the possibility of an action, it's necessary
to go all the way to intuitionistic logic.
I am,
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
In the name of Davy I, Queen of Agora Nomic, CAT 24, and her other realms, I
cause the new rule created by proposal 7537 to amend itself to read:
Hmm... it is interesting how Rule 101 (iv) might be interpreted in
view of there only
On 29/07/2013 5:48 PM, omd wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Foolfool1...@gmail.com wrote:
In the name of Davy I, Queen of Agora Nomic, CAT 24, and her other realms, I
cause the new rule created by proposal 7537 to amend itself to read:
Hmm... it is interesting how Rule 101 (iv) might
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
How rule 101 might HAVE been interpreted, past tense. Your proposal passed.
Hey, wasn't my idea...
Good point.
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
I am, as it happens, a mathematical constructivist. The reasoning is fully
constructive (goes through in intuitionistic logic).
Please elaborate.
On 29 July 2013 22:30, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
It would, incidentally, be more polite to attempt to achieve a
dictatorship in a way other than deregistering everyone.
Especially when it would have been just as easy to do it some other,
less annoying, way.
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 16:26 -0400, Fool wrote:
Curry's paradox hasn't gotten much attention in Agora. It came up in
discussion a couple of times, and in terms of usage in-game, all I found
was someone CFJing a free-floating sentence If this sentence is true,
then I win. That was about 10
On 29/07/2013 6:15 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
You forgot the Gerontocracy. The with notice is modified by the Elder
objections, thus breaking your loop.
I did not. Gerontocracy was lifted by proposal 7519.
Also, Agora generally denies the law of the excluded middle
It's constructive and does
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
The sentences in question are not directly self-referential or even
mutually-referential. This is more of a Curry-flavoured confused deputy, with
rule 2337 as the deputy. It says that the author can destroy a promise with
notice IFF the sentence in its
On 29/07/2013 6:16 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 16:26 -0400, Fool wrote:
I cash the promise titled !!! [Text: !!!. Cashing condition: This
promise has existed for 2 months. It was created May 21.]
CoE: Which two months has it existed for? June, certainly. But it hasn't
existed
On 29/07/2013 6:20 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
The sentences in question are not directly self-referential or even
mutually-referential. This is more of a Curry-flavoured confused
deputy, with rule 2337 as the deputy. It says that the author can
destroy a promise
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 18:20 -0400, Fool wrote:
On 29/07/2013 6:15 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
You forgot the Gerontocracy. The with notice is modified by the Elder
objections, thus breaking your loop.
I did not. Gerontocracy was lifted by proposal 7519.
Also, Agora generally denies the law
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
On 29/07/2013 6:20 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
The sentences in question are not directly self-referential or even
mutually-referential. This is more of a Curry-flavoured confused
deputy, with rule 2337 as the deputy. It says
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
How do you define iff (in the rules) in the absence of the law of
excluded middle? It may not be the same way that the rules themselves
do.
Ah, yes. That makes sense.
((a - b) - a) - b holds intuitionistically, but
(((a - b)
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote:
If they dispose of their dictatorship quickly via win+trophy, Agora
typically tolerates them. (Sometimes there's a race where someone with a
power-1 dictatorship tries to get it at a higher power; normally the
time limit for that is long enough for the
On 29/07/2013 6:27 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
Where does a week or more come from?
It's the length of time to adopt a proposal; most such scams normally
involved preventing everyone else from voting for long enough to pass a
dictatorship proposal.
I passed a rule giving me immediate amendment
On 29/07/2013 6:32 PM, omd wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Alex Smithais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
How do you define iff (in the rules) in the absence of the law of
excluded middle? It may not be the same way that the rules themselves
do.
Ah, yes. That makes sense.
((a - b)- a) - b
On 29 July 2013 23:40, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote:
If they dispose of their dictatorship quickly via win+trophy, Agora
typically tolerates them. (Sometimes there's a race where someone with a
power-1 dictatorship tries to get it at a higher
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
How's that. Why is it (~(a-b) - ~a) and not (a - (a-b)) ?
IMPOSSIBLE except as allowed
~(allowed) - ~a
It's allowed if a - b, therefore ~(a - b) - ~a.
So, you admit it's NOT IMPOSSIBLE for me to do this stuff? :-)
Possibly.
This whole thing strikes me as being in incredibly poor form and I
disapprove of it.
(People who were around to see me years ago can stop laughing now.)
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 18:44 -0400, Fool wrote:
Uh.. ok. What's the trophy and what's the time limit for getting it?
Anything permanent that sticks around in the gamestate. Typical
dictatorship trophies include my Patent Title of H., the Town Fountain,
and omd's trophy whereby e extended the
On 29/07/2013 6:59 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 18:44 -0400, Fool wrote:
Uh.. ok. What's the trophy and what's the time limit for getting it?
Anything permanent that sticks around in the gamestate. Typical
dictatorship trophies include my Patent Title of H., the Town Fountain,
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 19:15 -0400, Fool wrote:
And the time limit?
Typically as long as it takes people to determine whether the scam
worked or not.
--
ais523
To expand on my previous argument, for what it's worth, I really don't
see an interpretation that causes a problem whose solution would be
making a rule (about evaluating the rules generally) saying something
that (a) is assumed in just about any other context and (b) has always
been left to
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 19:15 -0400, Fool wrote:
And the time limit?
Typically as long as it takes people to determine whether the scam
worked or not.
Note that this has not always been followed; scshunt kept an
unambiguous
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 19:18 -0400, omd wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 19:15 -0400, Fool wrote:
And the time limit?
Typically as long as it takes people to determine whether the scam
worked or not.
Note that this has not
On 29/07/2013 6:46 PM, omd wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Foolfool1...@gmail.com wrote:
How's that. Why is it (~(a-b) - ~a) and not (a - (a-b)) ?
IMPOSSIBLE except as allowed
~(allowed) - ~a
It's allowed if a - b, therefore ~(a - b) - ~a.
So, you admit it's NOT IMPOSSIBLE
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 19:35 -0400, Fool wrote:
Let's ask if you are a player (c). If I de-registered you, you are NOT a
player (b - ~c).
But (b - ~c) - (~~b - ~c). So if it was NOT IMPOSSIBLE for me to
de-register you, you are not a player.
But it is impossible, it's secured and you have
On 29/07/2013 7:33 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
I assume Assessor.
Voting results for Proposals 7530-7547:
COE:
By Rule 1950, the eligible voting entities are set at the _distribution_
of the proposal. I am not sure whether your scam succeeds (well, I doubt
it
On 29/07/2013 7:37 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 19:35 -0400, Fool wrote:
Let's ask if you are a player (c). If I de-registered you, you are NOT a
player (b - ~c).
But (b - ~c) - (~~b - ~c). So if it was NOT IMPOSSIBLE for me to
de-register you, you are not a player.
But it
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
On 29/07/2013 7:33 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
I assume Assessor.
Voting results for Proposals 7530-7547:
COE:
By Rule 1950, the eligible voting entities are set at the _distribution_
of the proposal. I am not sure whether
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 19:41 -0400, Fool wrote:
Anyways, I did see your other message (sorry, a lot to reply to). The
rule has power three and says I can do it by announcement. You really
have to argue the rule does not say so, the other arguments are
extraneous. Otherwise you're saying
On 29/07/2013 7:49 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 19:41 -0400, Fool wrote:
Anyways, I did see your other message (sorry, a lot to reply to). The
rule has power three and says I can do it by announcement. You really
have to argue the rule does not say so, the other arguments are
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
However, Rule 1688 says
except as allowed by an Instrument. I don't think you can point to a
single instrument that's doing the allowing here (given that you've
constructed your logic based on the interaction of multiple rules),
On 29/07/2013 7:46 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
See the recent TIME OUT scam... making someone not an eligible voter
does set their voting limit to 0.
I'm claiming you haven't made them not eligible voters in the first
place, even if you deregistered them.
That was the TIME OUT scam -- made
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
:-)
Let's ask if you are a player (c). If I de-registered you, you are NOT a
player (b - ~c).
But (b - ~c) - (~~b - ~c). So if it was NOT IMPOSSIBLE for me to
de-register you, you are not a player.
Let's ask if you are a
On 29/07/2013 8:04 PM, omd wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Foolfool1...@gmail.com wrote:
:-)
Let's ask if you are a player (c). If I de-registered you, you are NOT a
player (b - ~c).
But (b - ~c) - (~~b - ~c). So if it was NOT IMPOSSIBLE for me to
de-register you, you are not a
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
On 29/07/2013 7:46 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
See the recent TIME OUT scam... making someone not an eligible voter
does set their voting limit to 0.
I'm claiming you haven't made them not eligible voters in the first
place, even if you deregistered them.
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote:
I don't see anything in the Rules where activity changes affect votes on
proposals after the voting period has already begun. If that was judged to
the opposite effect I would suggest a reconsideration.
That scam was
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:16 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
x7531 30 O omd Painfully explicit timing
x7532 30 O omd Alternative: just ban last-minute actions
x7533 30 O omd Referendum on date rewriting
I almost prefer the scam version. Don't blame me
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 21:20 -0400, omd wrote:
Seriously?
The proposal doesn't do anything. Proposals written in the form of a
question normally don't do a whole lot.
--
ais523
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
The sentences in question are not directly self-referential or even
mutually-referential. This is more of a Curry-flavoured confused deputy,
with rule 2337 as the deputy. It says that the author can destroy a promise
with notice
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
The sentences in question are not directly self-referential or even
mutually-referential. This is more of a Curry-flavoured confused deputy,
with rule
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 23:35 -0400, omd wrote:
Per previously mentioned entirely constructivist arguments, we can
conclude from the /existence/ of this statement that I am a banana.
I think bananas count as biological, and you seem capable of
communicating via email in English, so I don't see a
50 matches
Mail list logo
