> 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
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
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
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
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
>
>
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
> 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
(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
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
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
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
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.
701 - 718 of 718 matches
Mail list logo
