DIS: secured
So, I'm new here. When I read the rules, I noticed many mentions of things being secured, but I couldn't find a definition for that. What does it mean?
Re: DIS: secured
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 6:36 PM, tmanthe2nd . trstnbrd...@gmail.com wrote: So, I'm new here. When I read the rules, I noticed many mentions of things being secured, but I couldn't find a definition for that. What does it mean? See Rule 1688, Power. -scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: Registering
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 12:41 AM, tmanthe2nd . trstnbrd...@gmail.com wrote: I, Tristan Bredeweg would like to register as a player in Agora Nomic. Welcome to our humble nation. We hope you enjoy your stay. —the Warrigal
DIS: Eternal proto: Security groups
(I don't actually plan to submit a proposal along these lines any time soon; this is just an idea.) Create a rule with power 3, titled Security Groups: A Security Group is a certain type of entity. A Security Group with power 0 cannot exist; if such a Security Group somehow exists, it immediately ceases to exist. Every Security Group contains some number of entities as members. The collection of members of a Security Group is a substantive aspect of that Security Group. Create a rule with power 3, titled Security Groups Control Mutability, Too: A rule that makes a change, action, or value (hereafter the controlling rule) controlled by a Security Group thereby makes it IMPOSSIBLE to perform that change or action, or to set or modify that value, except as allowed by an instrument which is a member of that Security Group, or by an instrument with power 3 or greater. As an exception, the above paragraph never prohibits an instrument from adding itself to a Security Group whose power is less than or equal to the power of the instrument. An example of an intended use case: we might want to say that, say, proposals can only be created or modified through specific well-understood processes; and, in particular, proposals can't be arbitrarily messed with by any ol' rule with power 2.5. You could just say something like the following: There is a Security Group called Proposal with power 3. Altering any substantive aspect of a proposal is controlled by the Proposal Security Group. A proposal CAN, as part of its effect, cause this Rule to add it to the Proposal Security Group. Then add all relevant rules to the Proposal Security Group. Now it's possible for a rule with power 1 to mess with proposals if it's in the Security Group, and a proposal with AI 1 can amend such a rule, but it's also impossible for a rule with power 2.5 to mess with proposals if it's not in the Security Group, and it has no way of letting itself in. —the Warrigal
DIS: Re: BUS: De-registering
On Tue, 2015-07-28 at 16:01 +, Christopher Harrington wrote: I intend to de-register. Deregistration is by announcement, so this doesn't work; it's interpreted as a (non-binding) statement that you plan to deregister at some later date, rather than deregistering you now. You probably just want I deregister. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Arbitor] CFJ 3449 assigned to aranea
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Luis Ressel ara...@aixah.de wrote:
I agree with ais523's interpretation that the the minimum of four and
none is four; mathematically, this seems to make sense: If we assume
{'none'} = {} and minimum of a and b := min {a,b}, then minimum of
none and four evaluates to min {'none',4} = min {4} = 4.
I disagree. The sets {'none'} and {} cannot be the same, because
{'none'} contains the element 'none' and {} does not. Interpreting
'none' as a magical value-that-doesn't-count-as-an-element is
confusing and unnecessary.
Now, I think it's not obvious how to interpret the phrase adoption
index—what, exactly, is the adoption index of an object?
The obvious answer is that the adoption index is the value of the
object's adoption index switch. However, this cannot be the correct
answer, because several rules (including Rule 1950 Decisions with
Adoption Indices, which *defines* the adoption index switch) refer
to the property of an object having an adoption index. Every
proposal or decision has a value for its adoption index switch, so
if the adoption index meant the value of the 'adoption index'
switch, all of these references would be pointless. Therefore, I
think the only reasonable definition of the adoption index is the
value of the object's 'adoption index' switch, if this value is an
integer (otherwise, the object has no adoption index).
So the question is, how should we interpret the phrase its power is
set to the minimum of four and its adoption index, when it has no
adoption index? I think the most straightforward answer is that since
its adoption index is meaningless, the whole phrase is meaningless
and has no effect. But that may not be the best answer.
This is a contrived example, but if a rule said something like a
Periwinkle Ribbon is awarded to the player whose First Proposal Length
is least, where a player's First Proposal Length is the number of
words in the first proposal e ever submitted, presumably any player
who has never submitted a proposal would simply be excluded. Likewise,
the best interpretation of the minimum of four and its adoption
index, where it has no adoption index, may simply be the minimum of
those options which *are* meaningful, the only one of which is four.
In mathematical terms, we're not taking the minimum of the set
{'none', 4}, but rather the minimum of the set {x | either x is 4, or
x is the proposal's adoption index}. When a proposal has no adoption
index, I would say that the sentence x is the proposal's adoption
index is meaningful, but false for all values of x, and so the set we
are taking the minimum of is {4}.
—the Warrigal
Re: DIS: secured
Oh, thanks. I tried searching for secured. I should have tried other forms of the word. On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 6:36 PM, tmanthe2nd . trstnbrd...@gmail.com wrote: So, I'm new here. When I read the rules, I noticed many mentions of things being secured, but I couldn't find a definition for that. What does it mean? See Rule 1688, Power. -scshunt
