Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate

2019-02-05 Thread Madeline
At what point do we just power-4 "Persons CANNOT be Instruments"? On 2019-02-06 14:41, Kerim Aydin wrote: Actually that Security thing is a big hole, there's lots of stuff that's secured, and R1688 applies the method here: > except as allowed by an Instrument If "allowed" is defined as

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate

2019-02-05 Thread Kerim Aydin
Actually that Security thing is a big hole, there's lots of stuff that's secured, and R1688 applies the method here: > except as allowed by an Instrument If "allowed" is defined as something a person can do "naturally" (the way we treat, say, "agree"), then when the instrument is a natural

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate

2019-02-05 Thread Aris Merchant
It still matters what the rules say about the order of precedence, because the order of precedence is decided by the rules. If the rule defining the order of precedence was repealed, there wouldn't be an order of precedence, and power would have no effect in that regard. As it happens, the power

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate

2019-02-05 Thread Madeline
Isn't power a construct of the rules in its own right, though? It doesn't hold any value beyond what the rules actually give it. On 2019-02-06 12:59, D. Margaux wrote: But if the person is high enough powered (say, power=5), should it matter what the rules say about order of precedence if the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate

2019-02-05 Thread D. Margaux
But if the person is high enough powered (say, power=5), should it matter what the rules say about order of precedence if the high-powered person overrules them? I suppose ultimately it comes down to what the Agoran community is willing to accept, rather than what the Rules or any particular

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate

2019-02-05 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Tue, 5 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote: I guess if a person had power >3, then the R2125 limitation wouldn’t be a barrier anymore, though. I don't see why. I don't think there's any provision for anything other than a rule to take precedence over a rule, regardless of power. Greetings,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate

2019-02-05 Thread D. Margaux
I guess if a person had power >3, then the R2125 limitation wouldn’t be a barrier anymore, though. > On Feb 5, 2019, at 8:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Actually, we're in different territory now anyway than in past discussions, > because of the change to R2125; it's now pretty explicit in

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate

2019-02-05 Thread Kerim Aydin
Actually, we're in different territory now anyway than in past discussions, because of the change to R2125; it's now pretty explicit in requiring that methods for doing stuff, some method like 'by announcement' be in the rules. So it would be harder to argue that it worked than in the past. (I

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate

2019-02-05 Thread Kerim Aydin
Uncertain, because there's no clear way for you to take actions that have power, it might be like a blank rule with power-3, sure it's got power but can it do anything with it? Some of us powered ourselves up as the result of a scam (the patent title First Violin and other orchestral entries

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate

2019-02-05 Thread ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 16:36 -0800, Gaelan Steele wrote: > Side note: would a rule with the text “Gaelan has power 3” be > sufficient to establish a dictatorship? This was intensely debated in the past, but I forget what the end result was. (I vaguely remember it was something along the lines of

DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate

2019-02-05 Thread Gaelan Steele
Side note: would a rule with the text “Gaelan has power 3” be sufficient to establish a dictatorship? Gaelan > On Feb 5, 2019, at 4:13 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > I withdraw my proposal The Duumvirate v.1.1, in order to make a minor > clarifying edit. > > I submit (and if necessary pend) a

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

2019-02-05 Thread Aris Merchant
I promise, I won’t preferentially delay any proposals. If they’re late, they’ll be late for the sole reason that the entire report is late. That shouldn’t happpen though, as I have some free time over the next few days. -Aris On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 9:41 AM D. Margaux wrote: > I intend to

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

2019-02-05 Thread Ørjan Johansen
I think you technically cannot force it until just after the Week, because you need to wait until the Promotor is late (rule 2160 §3). Greetings, Ørjan. On Tue, 5 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote: I intend to deputise for Promotor to distribute the proposals in the proposal pool. I intend to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Proposal Versions

2019-02-05 Thread Reuben Staley
I understand the proposal is flawed but Telnaior is space-bullying me and this fixes my problem. On 2/5/19 3:28 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: I’m against the Space bullying thing because I believe it’s more interesting if that was achieved via contracts and such. (Our own Geneva Convention of a sort,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: still need a currency for something

2019-02-05 Thread D. Margaux
Well, I admit I am totally perplexed by this. Excited to see what the scam is, that ties together dependent actions, nonconsensual deregistration, arbitrary power 3 rule-creation, and currency fungibility! Unless there are multiple separate scams being run here? Or there’s some misdirection

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer goes pew pew pew

2019-02-05 Thread D. Margaux
I have communicated my choice to the Astronomor > On Feb 4, 2019, at 4:15 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > I initiate a Space Battle between my (only) ship and D.Margaux’s (only) > ship, and I specify the Astronomor as the resolver.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

2019-02-05 Thread Kerim Aydin
Huh. YMMV, but I personally wouldn't consider it rude, especially if you explained why it was time-sensitive for you (unless you were doing it every time they were a day late or something). The whole purpose of requiring Notice is to give a fair warning. A specific purpose of deputisation,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

2019-02-05 Thread D. Margaux
In that case I won’t do the deputising then. I guess I’m just overly excited to see how the scam plays out. :-) > On Feb 5, 2019, at 4:16 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Yikes. > > I've been told in the past that forcibly ousting (non-corrupt) officers > without their consent is considered

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

2019-02-05 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Yikes. I've been told in the past that forcibly ousting (non-corrupt) officers without their consent is considered rude, but if you're willing to wait until the weekend I can distribute it for you as a one-off, if Aris hasn't already by then. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On

Re: DIS: Ceasing to exist

2019-02-05 Thread D. Margaux
You are listed as registered in the most recent Registrar’s report, so for game purposes you remain extant. Whether you exist for other purposes, I suppose, is a question I can’t answer. https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg09220.html > On Feb 5, 2019, at 3:20 PM,

DIS: Ceasing to exist

2019-02-05 Thread Jacob Arduino
Hello, By which mechanism have I ceased to exist? Thanks, - Jacob Arduino

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer something something

2019-02-05 Thread ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 08:37 -0800, Gaelan Steele wrote: > You could pull off a scam with ratification without objection (have a > legitimate excuse to ratify your coin holdings; get it ratified; go > on a spending spree; ratify again) Ratification doesn't set your current holdings to the ratified

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer something something

2019-02-05 Thread Gaelan Steele
You could pull off a scam with ratification without objection (have a legitimate excuse to ratify your coin holdings; get it ratified; go on a spending spree; ratify again) Gaelan > On Feb 5, 2019, at 8:22 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > You're good on the validity for the contest! > > More

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer something something

2019-02-05 Thread Kerim Aydin
You're good on the validity for the contest! More broadly, during the win-by-Apathy glut in the fall, it came up that dependent actions in general have this issue (A single announcement of intent lets you perform the action as many times as you want, as long as the intent dependencies (and

DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Weekly Report (revised)

2019-02-05 Thread Cuddle Beam
Trigon having 3 Karma pleasantly scratches an itch I didn't even know I had. On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 2:12 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > Herald’s Weekly report > > Date of Last Report: 01 Feb 2018 > Date of This Report: 04 Feb 2019 (1st revision) > > KarmaEntity (np=not player) > >

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Proposal Versions

2019-02-05 Thread Cuddle Beam
I’m against the Space bullying thing because I believe it’s more interesting if that was achieved via contracts and such. (Our own Geneva Convention of a sort, maybe?) It would harm the “free open world simulation” vibe that I enjoy from Space Battles. Also, a duo of players could still bypass