To be safe, I’d go with “the gamestate, excluding the rules” and then
ratify a recent SLR.
-Aris
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:29 PM James Cook wrote:
> Does that mean I should update the proposal to say "The gamestate,
> except for the rules, is changed ..." to make sure the proposal can
> take ef
Does that mean I should update the proposal to say "The gamestate,
except for the rules, is changed ..." to make sure the proposal can
take effect? Or maybe, to be safe:
The gamestate is changed to be as close as to the following updated
gamestate as this proposal is able to make it. The updated g
I'm not sure I'm completely following. Does CFJ 1104 support the
conclusion that players must hop on one foot? Is the idea that Rule A
fails to defer to Rule B because Rule 1030 overrules that attempt at
deference?
On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 18:32, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> This one's been in the FLR f
On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 02:47, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-02-22 at 02:40 +, James Cook wrote:
> > That seems to change the meaning of R1698 so that it's no longer
> > talking about actual changes to the rules. Is there any precedent
> > about whether that kind of thing (a lo
On Fri, 2019-02-22 at 02:40 +, James Cook wrote:
> That seems to change the meaning of R1698 so that it's no longer
> talking about actual changes to the rules. Is there any precedent
> about whether that kind of thing (a lower-power rule changing a
> higher-power rule by defining a term) works
On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 08:56, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> Maybe you’re right. Either way, you could do any number of
> not-quite-ossification things (for instance, proposals authored by anyone
> other than you can only amend if the author published the full text of the
> proposal 3.5+ weeks ago).
Hm, that's a good point about capitalization. I'm not really familiar
enough with game custom to say.
Your idea about raising a real-life banner has got me thinking...
Raising a banner is a regulated action (R2125), so even if we assume
capitalization doesn't matter, and that you did raise a bann
> Here are my initial proto-judgement, but I am definitely open to being
> persuaded otherwise:
>
> * * *
>
> Caller's arguement depends on the idea that to "Declare Apathy" means
> the same thing as to "announce" or "publish apathy." I don't
> necessarily agree with that, and so I would judge FAL
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 09:50, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> For a good while now I've wanted to figure out a way to have little
> machine-learning bots play nomic and learn and improve at the game to see
> what kind of emergent strategies they develop. Problem is, real nomic is
> real fucking complicated l
This one's been in the FLR forever:
CFJ 1104 (called 20 Aug 1998): The presence in a Rule of deference
clause, claiming that the Rule defers to another Rule, does not
prevent a conflict with the other Rule arising, but shows only how
the Rule says that conflict is to be resolved when it do
> On Feb 21, 2019, at 1:16 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:03 AM D. Margaux wrote:
>
>> Rule A (power 2): “Except as provided by other rules, a player MUST hop on
>> one foot.”
>>
>> Rule B (power 1): “Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a player MAY elect
>> to s
It *is* super-interesting in a constitutional delegation-of-powers
sense! I would say that R1030 does actually turn this into a
conflict. But it's not a conflict between Rule A and Rule B. It's a
conflict between Rule A and Rule 1030, which says that Power overrides
the deference clause in Rule
> On Feb 21, 2019, at 12:26 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Deference clauses only work between rules of the same power. Power is
> the first test applied (R1030).
That is so interesting. It’s counterintuitive to me that it would work that
way. To take an example, here are two hypothetical rules
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 12:57 AM Gaelan Steele wrote:
> >> The proposed rule is a prohibition on a certain type of change. Because
> >> 106 says “except as prohibited by other rules”, it defers to this rule.
Deference clauses only work between rules of the same power. Power is
the first test ap
Maybe you’re right. Either way, you could do any number of
not-quite-ossification things (for instance, proposals authored by anyone other
than you can only amend if the author published the full text of the proposal
3.5+ weeks ago).
Gaelan
> On Feb 21, 2019, at 12:52 AM, Madeline wrote:
>
>
Wouldn't it just be ossified because arbitrary rule changes cannot be
made? The "and/or" does function as an or!
On 2019-02-21 19:37, Gaelan Steele wrote:
I create the AI-1 proposal “Minor bug fix” with the following text:
{
Create the power-1 rule “Don’t mind me” with the following text:
{The
Yes, the "gamestate" includes the rules, and I initially assumed the same thing
as you. But ais523 pointed out a few days ago that rule 105/19 says
A rule change is wholly prevented from taking effect unless its
full text was published, along with an unambiguous and clear
specif
17 matches
Mail list logo
