Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Politics

2019-02-24 Thread Cuddle Beam
I didn’t find the Politics game particularly fun to play On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 at 02:07, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > Yeah, I noticed that earlier in the week but didn't get around to stopping > you. Win by apathy indeed. :P > > -twg > > Original Message > On 25 Feb 2019, 00:01,

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

2019-02-24 Thread Ørjan Johansen
Missing obvious kind of extreme case: { Power 3: Players can Declare Quanging by announcement, unless another rule contains the word “Walruses”. Power 1: Walruses are a currency tracked by the Zoologist. [...] } On Sun, 24 Feb 2019, Gaelan Steele wrote: Some thought experiments: { Power

DIS: Re: BUS: let's proceed to the second line-item

2019-02-24 Thread Gaelan Steele
I’m all for more meta-shenanigans—it’s a game about changing the rules, and it’s only right to change the rules about changing the rules. However, I am with ais523 that we should have a power restriction. Also, if this is a real proposal, you might want to just avoid the power debate. IMO, put

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

2019-02-24 Thread Gaelan Steele
I mean, in practice that just means that voting against a proposal would be something you do very not-lightly. We’d end up with a lot of negotiation and politicking. In practice, splits would be fairly rare. Gaelan > On Feb 24, 2019, at 3:20 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > > This reminds me of a

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

2019-02-24 Thread Gaelan Steele
Some thought experiments: { Power 3: Players can Declare Quanging by announcement, unless another rule contains the text “Players can’t Declare Quanging.” Power 1: Players can’t Declare Quanging. } { Power 3: Players can Declare Quanging by announcement, unless another rule describes a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: let's proceed to the second line-item

2019-02-24 Thread ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
On Mon, 2019-02-25 at 01:11 +, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > What about just requiring Agoran Consent? Seems like the obvious way > to protect something that could be useful or dangerous depending on > who's using it. Historically, we've restricted this sort of screwing with proposals to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: let's proceed to the second line-item

2019-02-24 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
What about just requiring Agoran Consent? Seems like the obvious way to protect something that could be useful or dangerous depending on who's using it. -twg Original Message On 25 Feb 2019, 01:08, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > It seems to me that this would cause a heap of

DIS: Re: BUS: Politics

2019-02-24 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Yeah, I noticed that earlier in the week but didn't get around to stopping you. Win by apathy indeed. :P -twg Original Message On 25 Feb 2019, 00:01, D. Margaux wrote: > I pay 24 balloons to win the game (legitimately this time). > > H. Clork: Unless I misread the rules or

DIS: Re: BUS: let's proceed to the second line-item

2019-02-24 Thread Ørjan Johansen
It seems to me that this would cause a heap of complications in writing proposals, which would need to include safeguards against disastrous partial applications. For example, a proposal that splits an important rule into two parts, by amending the original and creating a new one, could

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

2019-02-24 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Sun, 24 Feb 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote: Please look at the Caller's "two assumptions" arguments in CFJ 1104, I was on the fence when this conversation started, but reading those arguments is what convinced me: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1104 Those arguments explicitly

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Politics

2019-02-24 Thread Reuben Staley
I was mildly interested, but I was deterred from participation by the early scam. -- Trigon On Sun, Feb 24, 2019, 17:06 Kerim Aydin > Funnily enough, the last time this was implemented, the same sort of thing > happened: several people said "this sounds cool", then almost no one played > and

DIS: Re: BUS: Politics

2019-02-24 Thread Kerim Aydin
Funnily enough, the last time this was implemented, the same sort of thing happened: several people said "this sounds cool", then almost no one played and the winner was effectively unopposed. (for me personally, the rules sounded worth trying and are well-written, I just didn't get around to

Fwd: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

2019-02-24 Thread Kerim Aydin
(another from Murphy) Forwarded Message Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 12:09:41 -0800 From: Edward Murphy To: Kerim Aydin G. wrote: But if you really want it, please take it out of the wins at this point. How about a new Patent

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

2019-02-24 Thread Kerim Aydin
Murphy's thread reply, meant to go to discussion I think. Forwarded Message Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast! Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 12:02:17 -0800 From: Edward Murphy To: Kerim Aydin G. wrote: On 2/24/2019 10:11 AM, D. Margaux wrote: > The ultimate point is that

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

2019-02-24 Thread Reuben Staley
This reminds me of a concept I ran across while reading an essay about Nomic one time called Fork World, where the guiding principle of play is "no coercion". In Fork World, the group of players who vote against each rule change and the group of players who vote for are sent to their own,

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

2019-02-24 Thread D. Margaux
> On Feb 24, 2019, at 1:40 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > There's an entirely-independent protection worth considering, in R2140 - > even if a higher-powered rule defers to a lower powered-one, if the lower- > powered one then makes use of that deference to "set or modify a substantive > aspect"

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

2019-02-24 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 2/24/2019 10:11 AM, D. Margaux wrote: > The ultimate point is that the CFJ doesn’t consider the differencesbetween > the situation where ONE rule claims priority/deference to the other and > the other is silent, versus when BOTH rules give INCONSISTENT > priority/deference answers, versus

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

2019-02-24 Thread D. Margaux
> On Feb 24, 2019, at 1:16 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > What's missing from this analysis, in my view, is that it's not purely A>B, > it's actually "A>B about fact P". So if two rules say different things > about P, the two rules can wholly agree, via an explicit > precedence/deference

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

2019-02-24 Thread D. Margaux
> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:51 AM, D. Margaux wrote: > > > >> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> Can you give me any example of a pair where R1030 would block deference from >> a high power to a low power from working? The problem I'm having is that >> your reading

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

2019-02-24 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 2/24/2019 9:47 AM, D. Margaux wrote:> > The mirror image assumption is partly wrong, in my opinion, and I don't > think that CFJ adequately considers why. > > For rules A and B, let: > > “A > B” mean A claims precedence to B; > “A < B” mean that A defers to B; and > “A = B” mean that A is

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

2019-02-24 Thread D. Margaux
> On Feb 24, 2019, at 12:47 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > > The mirror image assumption is partly wrong, in my opinion, and I don't think > that CFJ adequately considers why. > > For rules A and B, let: > > “A > B” mean A claims precedence to B; > “A < B” mean that A defers to B; and > “A =

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

2019-02-24 Thread D. Margaux
The mirror image assumption is partly wrong, in my opinion, and I don't think that CFJ adequately considers why. For rules A and B, let: “A > B” mean A claims precedence to B; “A < B” mean that A defers to B; and “A = B” mean that A is silent about its deference or priority relationship to

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

2019-02-24 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 2/24/2019 8:51 AM, D. Margaux wrote: >> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> Can you give me any example of a pair where R1030 would block deference >> from a high power to a low power from working? The problem I'm having is >> that your reading prevents R1030 from

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

2019-02-24 Thread D. Margaux
> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Can you give me any example of a pair where R1030 would block deference from > a high power to a low power from working? The problem I'm having is that > your reading prevents R1030 from working at all by defining R1030 > "deference" as

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: line-item veto

2019-02-24 Thread Kerim Aydin
CuddleBeam's reading is exactly my intended one - the language is precisely worded to be triggered by the "except as prohibited by other rules" in the first part of R106, thus doing an end-run around the latter R106 clause with a power-1 rule. But only if we hold the position that "except as

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

2019-02-24 Thread Kerim Aydin
Can you give me any example of a pair where R1030 would block deference from a high power to a low power from working? The problem I'm having is that your reading prevents R1030 from working at all by defining R1030 "deference" as something that never happens. On 2/24/2019 5:54 AM, D. Margaux

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

2019-02-24 Thread D. Margaux
> On Feb 23, 2019, at 9:06 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > >> On 2/22/2019 8:06 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: >> I think the "Except as prohibited by other rules" is a condition, and >> _possibly_ also a deference (it depends on exactly what deference means). > > I don't think there should be a

DIS: Re: BUS: line-item veto

2019-02-24 Thread Cuddle Beam
That actually doesn't serve as protection, ais523. 106 is about proposals not having effects altogether, this is about the proposal still passing and doing things, yet it's *text* that has fuckery applied to it. (And proposals are more than just its effect text.) >Vetoed provisions in a proposal

DIS: Re: BUS: line-item veto

2019-02-24 Thread Cuddle Beam
Hey, this is some scary shit man. > " The Comptroller CAN, by announcement, veto the individual provisions in a proposal during the voting period of a Decision to adopt the proposal." Couldn't you just veto... Everything? Sure, you are vetoing individual provisionsSSS, but you could veto every