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

2019-02-18 Thread James Cook
Can a proposal designate a change as a convergence? I worry about "in accordance with the rules" in R214. Is there anything wrong with D. Margaux's latest suggestion? I like the fact that it doesn't try to retroactively change the rule's history. (Though the retroactive rule change might be

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] vote for the best Ruleset find

2019-02-18 Thread James Cook
I vote {Gaelan, Telnaior, twg, CuddleBeam}. (Following twg's logic, except bumping twg's up since it would have been pretty grave had it worked. All four are interesting finds.) On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 21:35, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > My vote is {Gaelan, Telnaior, CuddleBeam, twg} - ordered

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

2019-02-18 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 23:15, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:05 PM, James Cook > wrote: > > Can a proposal designate a change as a convergence? I worry about "in > > accordance with the rules" in R214. > >

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

2019-02-18 Thread James Cook
> Thank you for all this work you've put in to fixing this! I would give you > some karma, but I've already used my Notice of Honour for the week, and it's > only Monday so I want to save Corona's in case something truly astonishing > happens later on. It's my pleasure. I'm certainly getting

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie Auction

2019-03-01 Thread James Cook
Did you mean to send that to BUS? On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 20:42, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > I bid a coin. > > Gaelan > > > On Mar 1, 2019, at 12:06 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > > > I initiate a zombie auction, with the following lots (each zombie a > > separate lot) ordered as follows (highest-bid

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset: Eighth Week of 2019

2019-03-01 Thread James Cook
On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 04:11, Reuben Staley wrote: > The logical rulesets are very long documents. Lots of times, the rulesets > slip through because of that. Check the archives on agoranomic.com. When I > get around to updating the ruleset site, it'll also be there. I'm sure you mean

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ruleset Ratification

2019-03-02 Thread James Cook
On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 05:23, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > That said, there is a possible failure state: if every player has at > least 13 Blots, and nobody has any Ribbons, the adoption of a proposal > within four weeks would require someone with fewer Blots than that to > register.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ruleset Ratification

2019-03-02 Thread James Cook
> Indeed, but I thought I'd point it out so that people were aware. > > In general, rule 1698 triggers should be avoided as much as possible. > The problem is that it (intentionally) defeats Agora's existing > mechanisms for ensuring that we know what the gamestate is; it's better > to have an

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

2019-02-20 Thread James Cook
> I'd prefer to just repeat the cleanings. Mass changes to the ruleset > are one of the riskiest things you can do in Agora (which is why there > are so many protections preventing them being done by accident). My proposal says "The gamestate is changed...". I assumed that includes the rules,

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [SPOOKY Prime Minister] Distribution of Proposal 8164

2019-02-27 Thread James Cook
It does say "Rule 2124 is amended...". Why wouldn't that happen? I don't think the first paragraph referring to it as "the following amendment" stops it from being an effective part of the proposal on its own.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Victory by Apathy

2019-02-27 Thread James Cook
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2149 > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2150 > > These two judgements distinguish speech acts as being treated > differently than other types of terms-of-art. That landing-on-the-moon judgement was about landing on the moon

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Victory by Apathy

2019-02-27 Thread James Cook
On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 at 03:50, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, James Cook wrote: > > > 5. Rule 2465 says: "Upon doing so, the specified players win the game." > > When we talk about "Doing X" for any X, we almost always take X to refer

DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset: Eighth Week of 2019

2019-02-27 Thread James Cook
I don't see this message in the public archive at https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/maillist.html or at https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/maillist.html . Same for Trigon's FLR publication around the same time. Does anyone know why?

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

2019-02-27 Thread James Cook
> Enact a Rule, "Line-item Veto", with the following text: > >The Comptrollor is an imposed office. When the office is vacant, >the ADoP CAN, by announcement, set the Comptrollor to a player >chosen at random from the set of current Officers, excepting any >player

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [SPOOKY Prime Minister] Distribution of Proposal 8164

2019-02-27 Thread James Cook
dment itself? > > -- > Trigon > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 21:29 James Cook > > It does say "Rule 2124 is amended...". Why wouldn't that happen? I > > don't think the first paragraph referring to it as "the following > > amendment" stops it from being an effective part of the proposal on > > its own. > >

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: 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: 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: 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 +0000, 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 wheth

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: 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: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-21 Thread James Cook
hanges that it specifies. > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Thursday, February 21, 2019 2:47 AM, James Cook > wrote: > > > > I'd prefer to just repeat the cleanings. Mass changes to the ruleset > > > > > are one of the riskiest th

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3722-3725

2019-03-08 Thread James Cook
twg's message says the H. Assessor publish the below tally, but I didn't receive any emails containing it, and I can't find it in the public archives. When was that email sent, and to which list? I don't think it has any bearing on the CFJs. I'm just trying to figure out if I'm missing emails.

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3722-3725

2019-03-09 Thread James Cook
On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 at 05:30, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > It was not published, twg is simply referring jokingly to emself, as e is > the Assessor. Oh, that makes sense. But I'm confused by D. Margaux's CFJ that 8164's outcome is ADOPTED, if there was no message attempting to resolve the decision.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-16 Thread James Cook
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 at 17:04, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Ok, hopefully last time! > > I withdraw the proposal Ritual Sacrifice from the pool. > > I submit the following proposal, Ritual Sacrifice, AI-1: > > > Create a Rule

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread James Cook
Would also add G as coauthor (thanks for help researching history of the rule) and use the proper handle for ais523 (will double-check with earlier email to make sure I have it right). On Mon., Feb. 18, 2019, 00:58 James Cook On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 05:08, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 2/17/

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 14:08, D. Margaux wrote: > Also... if intents are truly broken, that could lead to a lot of havoc in the > gamestate. It would be potentially impossible to sort out. > > Maybe the fix legislation could say something like, “upon enactment of this > proposal, the gamestate

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More Politicking

2019-02-17 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 03:40, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 03:31 +0000, James Cook wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 00:31, D. Margaux > > wrote: > > > I submit and pend this proposal: > > > > What does "pend" mean? >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 05:08, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On 2/17/2019 7:30 PM, James Cook wrote: > > I'm not familiar with the History of R2124. Do you know which proposal > > added #4, and whether there were any substantial changes to the rule > > after that? > > Thi

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 05:52, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Here are the others since then: > > > Amended(20) by R2430, 24 May 2017 > I don't know what this is - lots of rules have this comment but I can't find > the event. It's for cleaning rules. By design, I doubt the change could matter. E.g.

Re: DIS: proto: communications redux

2019-02-17 Thread James Cook
> Enact the following clause (possibly in R859, but there might be > a better place if we don't want to mess with R859): Did you mean 478? I don't see a rule 859. > Amend Rule 2496 (Rewards) by replacing: >by stating how many assets e earns as a result of this action. > with: >by

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 01:00, D Margaux wrote: > > On Feb 17, 2019, at 5:11 PM, James Cook wrote: > > Is it easy to make that a separate proposal from my amendment > > proposal? Or is that complicated to do? > > I think it would make the most sense to do it in one propos

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More Politicking

2019-02-17 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 00:31, D. Margaux wrote: > I submit and pend this proposal: What does "pend" mean?

DIS: Trouble subscribing

2019-02-12 Thread James Cook
I was unable to subscribe jc...@cs.berkeley.edu to the Agora lists (except tue), but was able to subscribe falsifi...@gmail.com. Is this a common problem? It's not a problem for me (assuming you received this message) but thought I'd mention it in case others are having trouble.

DIS: Re: BUS: Registration and Birthday

2019-02-12 Thread James Cook
y if more people support than oppose. So > based on that, I think the CFJ is FALSE, and I judge it that way unless there > is something I am missing. > > > On Feb 12, 2019, at 7:52 PM, James Cook wrote: > > > > I register. I go by "Falsifian" in online settings

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration and Birthday

2019-02-13 Thread James Cook
re" (as per R217), and it's not clear whether, as a result, > "declare" on it own would mean to publish it, or just say it out loud (i.e. > literally declare it to yourself), or what. So you'd be spot-on with your > arguments in that case. > > -G. > > On 2/12/2

DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-14 Thread James Cook
aelan wins the game by Apathy", but that seems a bit silly. On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 13:32, James Cook wrote: > > I submit a CFJ, specifying: > > "Agora is not Satisfied with an intent to perform an action unless it > is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. In particu

DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-14 Thread James Cook
(Also, how did #4 end up in that rule?) On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 13:38, James Cook wrote: > > If my CFJ is judged true, I welcome any proposal that would avoid > messing up all those past dependent actions. I feel bad depriving > anyone of a well-earned victory. Is there a cle

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

2019-02-14 Thread James Cook
> The way it should work is for Agora to be satisfied if any of (1) through (4) > are satisfied. That is, Agora is “satisfied” if there were fewer than N > objections and the action was without N objections; OR if there are more than > N supporters and the action was with N support; OR the

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

2019-02-14 Thread James Cook
be we should clarify that Agoran Satisfaction is an or, and include #4 as "the action is to be performed With Notice". Is that what you're suggesting? On Thu., Feb. 14, 2019, 09:30 D. Margaux > > > On Feb 14, 2019, at 9:27 AM, James Cook wrote: > > > > That woul

DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-14 Thread James Cook
To re-iterate a note I made at the start of all that noise: I recognize we might not be in agreement about how Rule 2124 is supposed to work, but I at least want the current version of my proposal to reflect my own thinking clearly. On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 18:36, James Cook wrote: > >

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

2019-02-14 Thread James Cook
d suggest staying with forward reasoning by keeping the current > items, except for #4 and the "; and", and adding "if all of the following > are true" that you suggested in an earlier message. > > Greetings, > Ørjan. > > On Thu, 14 Feb 2019, James Cook

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

2019-02-15 Thread James Cook
> I also like this version. > > However, there's another problem: a dangling "it". (This is also in the > present version of the rules, which I noticed during RTRW.) You should > make it clear whether the objectors and supports are to the /intent/, > or to the /action/. (Based on the way the other

DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-15 Thread James Cook
that this change means Rule 2124 no longer defines the notions of Supporter or Objector to an action, only an intent to perform an action. On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 17:57, James Cook wrote: > > I withdraw my previous proposal (Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, > Version 1.1.3) and submit a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: testing collective punishment

2019-02-15 Thread James Cook
Is it clear that a player CAN appease the rule by performing The Ritual? On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 18:14, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > Lmao, I love it. It reminds me of “the button” of Lost. > > On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 16:46, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual,

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

2019-02-14 Thread James Cook
easoning by keeping the current > items, except for #4 and the "; and", and adding "if all of the following > are true" that you suggested in an earlier message. > > Greetings, > Ørjan. > > On Thu, 14 Feb 2019, James Cook wrote: > > > Sorry fo

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

2019-02-14 Thread James Cook
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 14:48, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On 2/14/2019 6:27 AM, James Cook wrote: > > When I stumbled across this, my guess was that at some point, the > > rules were re-arranged so that Rule 1728 is responsible everything > > about Notice, where Rul

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

2019-02-14 Thread James Cook
4. the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. > > > On 2019-02-15 11:54, James Cook wrote: > > I added the negation because I was worried about interpretations of > > whether "if X then Y" is true. With classical logic, we may interpret > > that as

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

2019-02-14 Thread James Cook
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 19:05, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> the ratio of supporters to objectors is no more than N, and the > > action has no supporters or at least one objector. > > Dumb basic formal logic question that I should really know the answer to: > > If O=0, the ratio S/O is

DIS: Re: BUS: Victory by Apathy

2019-02-19 Thread James Cook
On Tue., Feb. 19, 2019, 23:12 ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 03:56 +, James Cook wrote: > > Apathy. I specify Falsifian and G. > > > > I initiate a Call for Judgement, specifying the statement: "Fal

Re: DIS: doing stuff?

2019-04-08 Thread James Cook
I've just been busy, personally. When I have time I've been meaning to figure out what the rules say about the zombie auction I bid in that never was announced completed, so technically I'm not lacking for something to do. On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 at 19:00, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > ok, are we on pause

Re: DIS: doing stuff?

2019-04-08 Thread James Cook
> In a timely fashion from what? Probably from when the auction ends > (automatically), not from the announcement. So this means you should > have paid, and broke the SHALL by not paying, and the announcement doesn't > affect that at all. But maybe that's wrong. > > And if you pay now, do you

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ribbon claims

2019-06-28 Thread James Cook
Thanks! I'd been itching to pull the trigger for a while. On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 at 14:44, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Just wanted to say well done on the Transparent Ribbon - that's my > favorite and always like to see how people get it. > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 11:43 PM James Cook w

DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo

2019-07-31 Thread James Cook
> That's a good point. Maybe we could add "as long as the announcement > is not conditioned on anything". It's possible that R478's requirement > that "by announcement" actions must be unambiguous would imply this > anyway. > > -- > - Falsifian I have realized the value of the Roshambo Wheel

Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo

2019-07-31 Thread James Cook
> Once per Agoran week, each player CAN Play Roshambo by > unconditional announcement, specifying Rock, Paper or Scissors. > When e does so: Oops, this part still needs to be updated. Once per Agoran week, each player Can Play Roshambo by unconditional announcement, specifying

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: space

2019-07-29 Thread James Cook
On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 at 10:27, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > Amend Rule 2595 by replacing the text "Any player CAN, by > announcement, spend a coin to increase the Armour of a Pilotable > Spaceship e owns by 1." with the text "Any player CAN pay a fee of 1 > coin to increase the Armour of a Pilotable

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8215-8234

2019-07-29 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 22:45, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > On Sunday, July 28, 2019 8:45 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > [This is one of the most complicated distributions in my time in office. > > There will be errors; CoE and I'll try to correct. I've been working at this > > for well over 4

DIS: Re: BUS: recusal rule trim

2019-07-29 Thread James Cook
On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 at 00:08, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Amend Rule 2492 (Recusal) to read in full: > >A judge CAN recuse emself from a CFJ e is assigned to, by >announcement. > >The Arbitor CAN recuse a judge from a case by announcement, if that >judge has violated a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8215-8234

2019-07-29 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 22:08, Jason Cobb wrote: > On 7/28/19 6:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I'm willing to try this voluntarily for Proposals and it might be > > interesting to broach the idea of requiring Subject format (that we've > > never > > done before). > > > Rule 2463 ("Motion of No

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: recusal rule trim

2019-07-29 Thread James Cook
> "The CFJ becomes unassigned" is covered in R991 as synonymous with being > Recused, so it wasn't needed (I think?): > ... > > Fine on putting the SHOULD back, hopefully that's not a deal-killer in terms > of voting for this one... (in the few self-recusals I've seen in the past > few months I

DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Are "secured" switches broken?

2019-07-29 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 03:37, Jason Cobb wrote: > A Rule that designates a switch as "secured" (at a given power > level) designates changes to that switch's value as secured (at that > power level). ... > Amend Rule 869 as follows: > > Delete the text "Changes to citizenship are

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business

2019-07-29 Thread James Cook
.) > > > > I recognize that this is really scammy and probably against game custom, > > but oh well. > > > > Jason Cobb > > > > On 7/24/19 9:58 AM, James Cook wrote: > > > >> Just in case, for future reference, here's my record of purported >

DIS: Re: BUS: M

2019-07-29 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 03:00, Rebecca wrote: > I deregister. Sad! > > -- > From R. Lee We'll miss you! -- - Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Monthly report, with correction to previous

2019-08-02 Thread James Cook
On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 at 16:08, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On 8/1/2019 8:59 AM, James Cook wrote: > > Note: The previous monthly report incorrectly listed the deregistration > > dates of 天火狐 and pokes as January 2019. The correct month is February > > 2019, as listed in this rep

Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo

2019-08-03 Thread James Cook
> Okay, a few things. > > * Defining “unconditional announcement” is probably overkill; any sane > judge would arrive at that that anyway, and it adds a bit to bloat. > * You should probably say "Roshambo Score is an integer player switch" (R > 2509) > * You should probably say "increased by 1"

Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo

2019-08-03 Thread James Cook
> Random "I" after "then at time T". > > Jason Cobb Thanks, should be fixed in the draft I just published. -- - Falsifian

Re: Cheap first wins (Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo)

2019-08-03 Thread James Cook
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 at 21:04, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Actually, I wonder if we should think about some kind of "debugging" > mechanism for victories. Something like "when a win method is first > implemented (some mechanism, probably involving Agoran Consent, for > figuring out whether the first win

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: No August zombie auction for now

2019-08-04 Thread James Cook
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 at 19:57, Cuddle Beam wrote: > Hello my bruddah and sistahs, please make way for my infinite swagger: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_izvAbhExY Hi Cuddle Beam! In case you're trying to not become a zombie, a reminder that you need to post to a public forum to prevent that.

Re: DIS: Email change

2019-08-04 Thread James Cook
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 at 14:08, Nich Evans wrote: > In a decluttering effort, I'm going to start using this address. > > -- > Nich Evans Let me know if you'd like it to be included somewhere in the Registrar's reports. E.g. I could add it to your footnote at

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] I submit myself to the Agoran Gods!

2019-08-04 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 04:33, Jason Cobb wrote: > > On 8/4/19 12:24 AM, Rebecca wrote: > > I submit myself to the Agoran Gods! I join the FRC and create the following > > rule > > > > O Hark, the commandments of the LORD are upon us! The LORD demanding the > > respect he deserves, the LORD hereby

DIS: Re: OFF: [FRC] Let the Festivities Commence!

2019-08-04 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 03:38, Aris Merchant wrote: > 2. Variety. Contributions that move things in a new direction shall be >rewarded. Contributions that merely repeat things that have come >before shall be punished. Remember that there are three distinct goals for >the contest;

DIS: Re: OFF: Re: BUS: [Astronomor] Weekly Report

2019-08-04 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 06:42, Jason Cobb wrote: > > On 8/4/19 2:38 AM, Rebecca wrote: > > COE: I am not a player, so I dont own a spaceship. You also have to delete > > a sector for me and for nch. > > > Accepted. > > Revision: What was R. Lee's spaceship is currently possessed by the Lost > and

Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo

2019-08-04 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 05:45, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 10:31 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > > > On 8/4/19 1:23 AM, James Cook wrote: > > >Whenever a player has not done so in the past 4 days, e CAN > > >Commune with the Wheel by announ

Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo

2019-08-04 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 05:23, James Cook wrote: > > > Okay, a few things. > > > > * Defining “unconditional announcement” is probably overkill; any sane > > judge would arrive at that that anyway, and it adds a bit to bloat. > > * You should probably say "Rosh

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3764 Assigned to D. Margaux

2019-08-15 Thread James Cook
On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 10:48, D. Margaux wrote: > > On Aug 15, 2019, at 6:41 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > * R869 doesn't prohibit rules or proposals from making a non-player a > > player. > > That may be true. But it does prevent a proposal from using the method of > "registration" to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] Penalty limmericks

2019-08-11 Thread James Cook
On Sun., Aug. 11, 2019, 13:26 Jason Cobb, wrote: > On 8/11/19 4:06 PM, James Cook wrote: > > This rule is dedicated to JUSTICA THE REASONABLE, ENFORCER OF THE > > RULES: please be assigned that new title, and may Proglet and every > > other Fugitive of the Old Law b

DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] Penalty limmericks

2019-08-11 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 at 20:06, Jason Cobb wrote: > > On 8/11/19 3:52 PM, James Cook wrote: > > Praise THE AGORAN SPIRIT OF THE GAME. > > So, my previous rule was INVALID. However, that doesn't invalidate > Titles and Continual Worship, so I'm not sure if that means tha

DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] Problems

2019-08-20 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 04:02, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 12:46 PM Aris Merchant > wrote: > > > > This is entire message is OOC. > > > > I'm not doing very well. I've been having both physical health problems and > > fairly serious mental health problems, in addition to a

Re: DIS: On R1586

2019-08-30 Thread James Cook
On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 23:45, Jason Cobb wrote: > Rule 1586 ("Definition and Continuity of Entities") reads in part: > > >If the entity that defines another entity is amended such that it > >no longer defines the second entity, then the second entity and > >its attributes

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8215A-8234A and 8243-8247

2019-09-01 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 at 12:16, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > That was my original logic, but there's a more fundamental problem I've just > noticed, which is that the document being ratified is the text of the > regulation itself, not just a statement that the regulation exists and has > that text.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Evil Astronomor] State of the Future Universe

2019-09-02 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 22:50, Jason Cobb wrote: > On 9/2/19 6:22 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Not sure if it was clear, but if all went according to plan, you are > > currently in a superposition of having been brought to justice and having > > been exonerated. I'm trying to win by paradox.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Evil Astronomor] State of the Future Universe

2019-09-02 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 22:22, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > It occurs to me that that's all for nothing if the Arbitor delays the case > until after the superposition resolves on the date of your future self's > report, but historically e's been susceptible to light bribery...? The judge is

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Evil Astronomor] State of the Future Universe

2019-09-02 Thread James Cook
On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 01:44, Jason Cobb wrote: > On 9/2/19 9:40 PM, James Cook wrote: > > Claim of Error on the below report: Falsifian might have a spaceship > > at the (future) time of the report. > > > > I'm blocking self-ratification because I tremble to

DIS: lost proposals (was [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8215A-8234A and 8243-8247)

2019-08-29 Thread James Cook
On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 06:04, Aris Merchant wrote: > The proposal pool is currently empty. The authors of the following proposals may want to submit copies of them if they are still relevant. Former proposal 8219 by Jason Cobb: definition de-capitalization Former proposal 8225 by Jason Cobb:

Re: DIS: lost proposals (was [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8215A-8234A and 8243-8247)

2019-08-29 Thread James Cook
On Thu., Aug. 29, 2019, 13:08 Aris Merchant, < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 9:44 AM James Cook wrote: > > > > On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 06:04, Aris Merchant > > wrote: > > > The proposal pool is currently empty. > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8215A-8234A and 8243-8247

2019-09-01 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 at 23:32, Reuben Staley wrote: > On 9/1/19 5:21 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > On 9/1/19 5:26 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> Also curious why twg and Jason Cobb voted against it? Is there something > >> wrong with the idea that I wholly missed a discussion about? > > > > I linked

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Unoffical contest: subgame in a rule

2019-09-01 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 at 17:11, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On 9/1/2019 8:06 AM, James Cook wrote: > >Whenever a player has not done so in the past 4 days, e CAN > >Commune with the Wheel by announcement, specifying a new value for > >the wheel. A player CA

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto-CFJ on existing

2019-09-01 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 01:15, Jason Cobb wrote: > I CFJ: "Existing is a regulated action." > > Evidence: > > { > > Rule 2125: > > > An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or > > permit its performance; (2) describe the circumstances under which > > the

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Unoffical contest: subgame in a rule

2019-09-01 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 at 19:20, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On 9/1/2019 10:52 AM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > > (Who should track this? The Treasuror is the obvious choice, but > > possibly we want a separate office. It shouldn't be much work, though, > > given that the only way to create Fruits

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

2019-09-01 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 04:40, Jason Cobb wrote: > On 8/26/19 10:38 PM, James Cook wrote: > > > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Unoffical contest: subgame in a rule

2019-09-02 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 04:27, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Sun, Sep 1, 2019 at 9:13 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > > > > On 9/2/19 12:11 AM, James Cook wrote: > > > Aris suggested it's unnecessary [0]. I thought the reasoning was that > > > an action conditioned on inde

DIS: Re: OFF: deputy-[Referee] Weekly Report

2019-09-02 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 14:36, Jason Cobb wrote: > CoE: Corona is no longer a player (whoops). > > Accepted. Revision: Corona is a Fugitive, not a player Is this revision a self-ratifying report containing anything other than the assertion that Corona is a Fugitive? Also, is it a revision at all,

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: deputy-[Referee] Weekly Report

2019-09-02 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 19:22, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On 9/2/2019 8:44 AM, James Cook wrote: > > On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 14:36, Jason Cobb wrote: > >> CoE: Corona is no longer a player (whoops). > >> > >> Accepted. Revision: Corona is a Fugitive, not a play

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: deputy-[Referee] Weekly Report

2019-09-05 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 20:12, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On 9/2/2019 12:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On 9/2/2019 12:44 PM, James Cook wrote: > >> Jason Cobb's CoE did identify eir report, and I think eir statement > >> explains "the scope and nature of a

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Evil Astronomor] State of the Future Universe

2019-09-05 Thread James Cook
On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 23:36, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > On Tuesday, September 3, 2019 1:32 AM, James Cook > wrote: > > On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 22:50, Jason Cobb jason.e.c...@gmail.com wrote: > > > I don't think the pledges affect the CFJ, since they were made after the &g

Re: DIS: Proto for a new economics system

2019-09-12 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 10:07, Reuben Staley wrote: > Create a new rule with title "Balancing", power 2, and text: >During the first Eastman week of each month, the Treasuror CAN and >SHALL perform the following actions, collectively known as >Balancing, in sequence: > >

Re: DIS: Proto for a new economics system

2019-09-12 Thread James Cook
On Thu., Sep. 12, 2019, 14:15 James Cook, wrote: > On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 10:07, Reuben Staley > wrote: > > Create a new rule with title "Balancing", power 2, and text: > >During the first Eastman week of each month, the Treasuror CAN and > >S

DIS: Re: BUS: Status of September Zombie Auction (Unofficial Report)

2019-09-12 Thread James Cook
I bid 43 Coins. On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 14:35, Jason Cobb wrote: > > On 9/11/19 10:14 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > I bid 41 coins. -G. > > > > On 9/11/2019 7:10 AM, James Cook wrote: > >> The auction was initiated 2019-09-05 18:20 UTC, and will end >

Re: DIS: Proto for a new economics system

2019-09-14 Thread James Cook
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 21:49, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > On Thursday, September 12, 2019 6:15 PM, James Cook > wrote: > > Benefits: > > * Self-balancing: We still have the property that if officers slack > > off, then efficiency cheques are worth more, simply because

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3773 assigned to Murphy

2019-09-16 Thread James Cook
> You can't accurately match something that /doesn't yet exist to be > matched against/. > > TRUE. No objection to TRUE, but I don't think I understand this argument. If the date were in the past instead of the future, could I argue that I can't accurately match something that no longer exists to

  1   2   3   4   >