Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-21 Thread Aris Merchant
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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-21 Thread James Cook
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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-21 Thread James Cook
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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-21 Thread James Cook
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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-21 Thread ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
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)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-21 Thread James Cook
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).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Victory by Apathy

2019-02-21 Thread James Cook
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

Re: DIS: Re: CFJ 3719

2019-02-21 Thread James Cook
> 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

Re: DIS: AI learning to play "nomic" (with NEAT)

2019-02-21 Thread James Cook
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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-21 Thread Kerim Aydin
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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-21 Thread D. Margaux
> 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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-21 Thread Kerim Aydin
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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-21 Thread D. Margaux
> 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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-21 Thread Kerim Aydin
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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-21 Thread Gaelan Steele
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: >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-21 Thread Madeline
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:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-21 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
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