If you're interested in working in this area, Maud (sometime player,
currently watcher) has offered a nominal reward for a proposal that does
away with the current precedence mechanism altogether. See if you can
avoid rule conflicts entirely, or (easier) if you can come up with a
more
On 8/13/07, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend to appeal CFJ 1646, with two support.
SUPPORT.
unless an inquiry
case pertaining to the truth of this identification is not
judged true
Consider:
unless an inquiry case pertaining to the truth of this identification
is judged other than TRUE, and is not overturned
in order to ensure that authorship remains as claimed while the case
is still
I don't understand why we don't just eliminate the phrase the vote
collector, and from R1728(d).
Another interesting concept would be one where citizenship must be
earned, such as through military service...I'm sure we could come up
with an Agoran equivalent.
We could make BVLOP zero.
This suggests that perhaps the chokey should force VVLOP to zero. That
would prevent voting on ordinary
I don't understand why we don't just eliminate the phrase the vote
collector, and from R1728(d).
Because it's non-intuitive, and it adds verbosity when announcing the
action. Dependent actions are meant to be light-weight, and there
should be no reason to have to support your own action.
The only caveat is that you'll have to
increase all the support (and objection?) indices by one.
Only the support index, I think, and only for dependent actions.
R2124(a): is N -- is N+1.
We don't use holidays for celebratory purposes. Agora's birthday used to
be a holiday, until it was realised that this was only an inconvenience.
Well, we ought to do *something*...
How about:
(proto) Birthday Presents
AI=2
{{{
Amend rule 2126 by adding the following item to VCs
I'm open to suggestions on an appropriate color. Mauve is my
current choice.
I suggest sticking to the primary colours, because they have well-known
letter abbreviations. So far we're not using any of the subtractive
primaries (C, M, Y) or the endpoints of the greyscale (K, W).
I'm
4. CAN X ONLY IF Y: Equivalent to CANNOT X UNLESS Y. Similar
for (MUST, MAY, SHALL, SHOULD) X ONLY IF Y.
I'm not sure I follow this. I see this as the definition of ONLY IF.
So, ONLY IF is only defined in the context of CAN X ONLY IF Y.
So, the intent here is to also make this the
3) While we're at it, I think we should forbid inactive players from
performing dependent actions in general.
None whatsoever. I agree with 3) as well.
But it's just this kind of loophole that could potentially lead to a
magnificent scam.
But it's equally possible someone could pull a
-class persons, to avoid partnership spam.
..Pavitra
If you're going to do this, you should include
something else to compensate for that effect, such as resetting VCs as
well.
An excellent point. I withdraw my proposal earned citizenship from
the proposal pool. I submit the following proposal at AI=2:
{{{
BobTHJ and root are coauthors of this
The interest index of a proposal is an integer from 1 to 3.
A proposal's interest index SHOULD be proportional
to its complexity.
Disinterested is a synonym for interest index 0. A proposal
SHOULD be disinterested if and only if its effects are limited
There's little point in a security level higher than the power of the
securing rule.
Oh yes, I meant to write in a clause about that. Append the sentence
A rule CANNOT specify a security level greater than its own power.
I think that should do it.
proposal which does not have a vote listed is considered to be voted
PRESENT:
This bit's fine.
Might have unexpected consequences, though. I think you just voted
PRESENT on proposals 5145 and 5146.
definition being repealed.
[[This gets around 1586 by avoiding the rules ever being repealed or
amended such that they no longer define a patent title.]]
..pavitra
On Monday 25 August 2008 03:08:16 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I'm not sure I accept that it's not possible to play if CAN implies
MAY. Of course, it makes a lot of the stuff that's intentionally
CAN but SHALL NOT for pragmatic purposes break, but it's still
possible to play. B Nomic for a long
abuse to do whatever you want.
Pavitra
On Thursday 28 August 2008 02:54:29 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
If the three of us who are still voting can agree on a non-voter to
lynch, perhaps we can get rolling again.
Now, *that's* a good idea.
On Sunday 14 September 2008 01:17:10 pm comex wrote:
On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Pavitra
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 14 September 2008 01:26:29 am Ian Kelly wrote:
I don't like the idea of a diceless system, since it would make
the result of combat calculable beforehand
On Thursday 18 September 2008 03:26:07 pm Taral wrote:
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
What's ugly about a max function?
Why do we need one?
Edge case. Then N/k+1 rules work well for largish numbers of players,
but the constant cutoffs are more
On Wednesday 10 September 2008 03:13:06 am Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)
wrote:
I register myself for Agora using the nickname Sir Toby.
For the benefit of the Registrar, I note that I was previously
registered under the nickname Sir Toby and the email address
[EMAIL PROTECTED]. My current email
On Friday 19 September 2008 06:49:17 pm Taral wrote:
The website has so far been updated by periodic volunteer
submissions. The last couple were from Zefram.
You might consider rewording watchers can also register. That tripped
me up a few months ago.
Pavitra
). R104 is
hardly the only subject for trivial CFJs.
Pavitra
Quite possibly that would violate R101.
If it does then so does the 5 CFJ thing
That's why the wording of R101 clause is as it is; if you're told you
can re-initiate on the same subject next week then you still have
a reasonable expectation of resolution with minor delay (but still in
a-b.
Pavitra
On Tuesday 14 October 2008 12:16:38 pm Taral wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 9:53 AM, Pavitra
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On behalf of BobTHJ, I intend without objection to flip Agora's
recognition to Hostile.
*snort* Why?
Because I think it would be entertaining.
On Tuesday 14 October 2008 04:07:28 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Kerim Aydin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If a Player registers, e should take responsibilities. I vote
Bayes.
I shudder at the thought of what Bayes might do with the
Registrar's report...
Nothing we
On Monday 13 October 2008 11:16:17 pm Charles Reiss wrote:
I intend, with majority Comrade consent, to cause the PBA to
register. I intend, with majority Comrade consent, to cause the PBA
to become a Farmer.
-woggle
I consent to each.
☭ Comrade Pavrita
On behalf of BobTHJ, I intend without objection to flip Agora's
recognition to Hostile.
Is that even a possible act? How is Agora a foreign nomic to itself?
This is currently sub judice.
I strongly recommend all Agorans to avoid all use of censored
in future messages except if necessary.
Can we use J instead?
Tjat would just be silly.
, supports, or performs, or in any
self-ratifying document e publishes.
Pavitra
by reference a great deal of
mechanism that would be otherwise merely implicit, customary, or
meta. It's actually rather similar to the function of R754(4).
Pavitra
I withdraw a 1 crop from the RBoA.
I harvest 2170
You are out of 1s, so I'm assuming you wish to use an X in 2X70.
Uh...
on
the preceding day.
Pavitra
On Saturday 18 October 2008 11:50:30 pm Pavitra wrote:
On Saturday 18 October 2008 12:13:21 pm ihope wrote:
The Quota is a positive integer, initially 30. If more than 30
Potatoes have been Fried in the last 30 days, then the Muckle CAN
increment the Quota by 1, and SHALL do so as soon
On Monday 20 October 2008 07:58:15 am Alex Smith wrote:
An eligible word is any word which occurs in a Rule, and/or any
word defined in a well-known English dictionary.
I'd rather have it just be the Rules. We don't have to deal with
ambiguous dictionaries, and there'll be maneouvreing to pass
On Sunday 19 October 2008 11:02:20 am warrigal wrote:
(Did I mention that I was expecting you guys to pick random
positive integers rather than using random bits elsewhere? Oh well.
And Pavitra, do you have an existing program that's capable of
finding Potatoes?)
I used Hashcash, before you
time to judge and run.
Apologies, I register a plea:
No fun.
Applause!
Pavitra:
O Protean Game, amended oft
(In fits by law, in starts by scam),
Thy glories Bard-prais'd, loud or soft,
In many keys -- how glad I am
To say this day, of all
On Tuesday 21 October 2008 11:33:00 am Ian Kelly wrote:
I especially don't want to start a
political discussion within these hallowed fora, so this will be my
only post on the subject.
Agreed. Between the Illuminati, UNDEAD, and the People's Bank of
Agora, we clearly don't have time for
On Wednesday 22 October 2008 12:39:30 am Ed Murphy wrote:
FOR x 5 (R1789 also uses deregistered rather than was
deregistered at the end)
It should at least use the present tense, deregisters or is
deregistered to taste, to prevent re-patenting old Huffers.
Pavitra
On Wednesday 22 October 2008 05:32:13 pm Elliott Hird wrote:
On 22 Oct 2008, at 23:30, Bayes wrote:
Bayes submits the following proposal, titled Plugging grafts
possibility hang,
(AI=1):
comex ran this despite me yelling at him not to.
Proto-proposal / kibbutz: Instead of having Bayes
On Wednesday 22 October 2008 07:46:51 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 6:39 PM, Pavitra
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proto-proposal / kibbutz: Instead of having Bayes make proposals
till it finds one it will vote for (= 50%), have it make
proposals for a fixed amount of real time
On Wednesday 22 October 2008 08:34:18 pm comex wrote:
Hmm. I should concatenate 1000 Bayes proposals, and stick an
intent to ratify in there.
CFJ 1125
On Thursday 23 October 2008 03:40:51 pm Alexander Smith wrote:
Wooble wrote:
I hereby initiate an equity case regarding the Protection Racket
contract, the parties to which are Wooble, ehird, and BobTHJ.
ehird and BobTHJ are, and have been for quite some time, in
material breach of
Pavitra
On Thursday 23 October 2008 08:07:35 pm Sgeo wrote:
Comments?
s/Forums/Fora/
s/Zephram/Zefram/
The paragraphs on Canada and Frankenstein might be updated to discuss
recent events.
The phrasing watchers can also register is misleading.
On Thursday 23 October 2008 09:09:23 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Pavitra
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
which I think is what this is trying to get at, the concept of
logical tautology.
A statement that could possibly be false is not a tautology.
Er, right.
What's
On Thursday 23 October 2008 10:05:12 pm Sgeo wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 9:53 PM, Pavitra wrote:
The paragraphs on Canada and Frankenstein might be updated to
discuss recent events.
What recent events wrt Canada, exactly? Do you mean the nomic that
was named after the situation?
That's
?
And how can the question be CFJed in a way that won't just come back
IRRELEVANT?
Pavitra
Our Bards are Three! Let's celebrate
And not this moment shun --
Proposal, Poet Laureate,
AI and II 1:
{
[Ordain an Office for us who'll
Ensure that prose stays not the same.]
At Power 1, create a Rule,
The Poet Laureate its name:
There is an office Poet Laureate,
Which no one but a
if constant proposals to amend rules is the way to go.
That's the way Mad Scientist currently works. Based on your
observations of that office, how do you recommend the mechanic be
altered?
Pavitra
On Friday 24 October 2008 11:14:43 am Ed Murphy wrote:
The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the
case. All other members of the bases of the parties to the
contract are also unqualified, except while this would result
in all entities being
On Sunday 26 October 2008 11:30:38 am Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
Revisiting my B.N. thesis (11/29/07) on partnerships, I've
identified the following general models of partnership control.
Can anyone think of any
On Monday 03 November 2008 07:29:20 am Alex Smith wrote:
I am Canary, northwest of the crescent dawn.
I made a mistake. This should say Galápagos, not Canary.
Sorry about that.
Pavitra
to Elysion;
4 to Murphy;
4 to Sgeo;
4 to root;
4 to Billy Pilgrim
I thought I submitted an answer to this. Did I miss the deadline?
Pavitra
of the assertion of the whole.
Pavitra
On Tuesday 04 November 2008 04:02:50 pm Alex Smith wrote:
Does this mean that all the Ranches in existence are owned by the
LFD, and that none have ever been destroyed due to water rights
enforcement?
MASSIVE GAMESTATE RECALCULATION
of the
resulting situation.
Pavitra
On Wednesday 05 November 2008 03:29:17 pm comex wrote:
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I intend, with 2 support, to initiate a criminal case against
ehird the first-class player for violating rule 2170 in the above
message by choosing a nickname that had
On Wednesday 05 November 2008 02:51:48 pm Ed Murphy wrote:
I initiate an inquiry case on the following statements:
Creating a contract in a public message constitutes an
implicit but nevertheless clear indication that it will be public
when it forms, unless published with an explicit
On Wednesday 05 November 2008 06:38:54 pm Ed Murphy wrote:
Pavitra wrote:
On Wednesday 05 November 2008 03:29:17 pm comex wrote:
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I intend, with 2 support, to initiate a criminal case against
ehird the first-class
On Thursday 06 November 2008 12:39:25 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I CFJ on the following statement: A passed proposal CAN flip a
switch to a value to which, by rule, the switch CANNOT be flipped.
trivially true, could be power difference
though the Aerican Empire itself
is not (necessarily) a game.
Finally, it may be worth observing that the Aerican Empire has awarded
Full Diplomatic Recognition to the Kingdom of Playland.
(For Agorans:) http://www.aericanempire.com/oth.html
Sincerely,
H. Pavitra, Player of Agora
On Thursday 06 November 2008 07:16:36 pm Pavitra wrote:
On Thursday 06 November 2008 10:23:26 am Ed Murphy wrote:
1) You state quite clearly on your site that you are a game which
acts like a nation. The Empire, not being a game, does not see
how we could recognise you as an equivalent
On Friday 07 November 2008 03:24:39 pm Sgeo wrote:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
5. At the end of the voting period on each Agoran decision with
a winning bid a number of Lobbyists equal to the number
specified by the winning bid in the possession of the
On Friday 07 November 2008 05:37:29 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 5:11 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
True. Although they still invest in this thing.
They have a Wikipedia article and have been
On Saturday 08 November 2008 09:33:21 pm comex wrote:
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 10:21 PM, Pavitra
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When interpreting and applying the Rules as a whole in every
context prior to this case, we have always (as far as I know)
treated them as implicitly ANDed; for example
On Saturday 08 November 2008 09:32:33 pm Ed Murphy wrote:
Hopefully an invasion would become clear early enough to start an
emergency session before the invaders could grab any offices
(minimum 4 days for nomination + 7 days for voting + 7 days before
an invader could deputise for the IADoP).
Rules.
It may be that this is in fact your reasoning, but it's not clear to
me what Rule would be overriding the Monster in this case.
Pavitra.
choose to be bound only by an arbitrary subset of the Rules.
I request that the above, and my earlier statements arguing for a
trivial TRUE, be included in the official record as gratuitous
arguments.
Also, you can't rule on a CFJ that doesn't exist, so your attempted
ruling is nonsensical.
Pavitra
---._
/\__/\ /\
\_ _/ / \
\ \_| @ __|
\\_
\ ,__/ /
~~~`~~/
}}}
Gratuitous arguments: i think the whale is a noun.
Pavitra
well.
Pavitra
contracts are
interpreted by literalities.
Pavitra
On Monday 10 November 2008 04:33:05 am Ed Murphy wrote:
Pavitra wrote:
I have a proposal in PerlNomic right now to limit it to once per
week (as Promotor reports used to be), but the only vote on it so
far (except mine) is AGAINST.
How about twice per week, evenly spaced, as during
that this contest CAN award.
As it stands, I think P is 5 times the number of all first-class
players.
Pavitra
On Monday 17 November 2008 07:55:00 pm comex wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Joshua Boehme [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
A player who has deregistered in a Writ of FAGE may not
register within thirty days of eir
On Tuesday 18 November 2008 12:26:25 am Ed Murphy wrote:
Pavitra wrote:
* There was a period lasting at least 4 days during which
the person was aware of or could easily have found out that an
attempt or intent to make that amendment was being made, and
could have ceased to agree
On Monday 17 November 2008 01:39:53 pm Alex Smith wrote:
First, the awards for authors:
I award 4 points to Pavitra, the author of a puzzle.
Then, the awards for correct answers:
I award Wooble 8 points for the first correct answer to Prediction.
I award Murphy 4 points for a correct answer
, increased by 50 (or however many it was, I
can't remember offhand).
I support.
I also support. The judgement of these CFJs should at least have
addressed this line of argument.
Pavitra
On Tuesday 18 November 2008 02:46:42 am Alexander Smith wrote:
Pavitra wrote:
ais523 wrote:
* There was a period lasting at least 4 days during which
the person was aware of or could easily have found out that an
attempt or intent to make that amendment was being made
On Wednesday 19 November 2008 06:37:52 pm comex wrote:
Proto-proto:
The initiator of a CFJ is generally the person who initiated
it. However, the CotC CAN create an inquiry case by announcement
identifying any person as its initiator, as well as a subclass and
all parameters generally
to make the decisions Democratic.
Thus, by the dreaded Reasonable Synonym Rule... you all know how it
goes from here.
Pavitra
On Saturday 22 November 2008 08:58:16 am Joshua Boehme wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:24:52 -0500
Jamie Dallaire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cross posting because I figure there could be interest on both
sides. If need be this can be a Werewolves-like endeavour.
Would anyone be interested
On Friday 21 November 2008 12:45:57 pm Roger Hicks wrote:
I apologize in advance for the glut of spam that is about to hit
the list from my automated recordkeeping system, and I promise to
think about fixing this problem Real Soon Now (TM).
BobTHJ
You might consider temporarily rerouting its
On Sunday 23 November 2008 02:08:23 am Roger Hicks wrote:
it is fixed now. Each
auto-generated action will now be accompanied by a reason (see the
last couple auto-generated mails). In addition, if there are
multiple events queued the system will send them all out in one
e-mail instead of a
On Saturday 22 November 2008 05:15:23 pm Warrigal wrote:
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree to the following:
{{{
Raargh! A public contract identifying itself as such.
A pledge is a low-priority office whose report includes the
On Sunday 23 November 2008 09:51:25 am Joshua Boehme wrote:
On 23 Nov 2008 00:00:16 -
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I PBA-deposit all the assets I recently withdrew in the message
titled Bank run, part 1 (I believe this gets me ^667).
Until woggle's amendment is adopted, I encourage all
On Sunday 23 November 2008 01:59:13 pm Elliott Hird wrote:
On 23 Nov 2008, at 19:40, Warrigal wrote:
I would intend to make the new USD Vouchers an Eligible Currency
with the support of The People, but given that that didn't work
last time, I'd like to know why first.
Why should it be?
On Sunday 23 November 2008 02:43:59 pm Elliott Hird wrote:
On 23 Nov 2008, at 20:29, Pavitra wrote:
On Sunday 23 November 2008 01:59:13 pm Elliott Hird wrote:
On 23 Nov 2008, at 19:40, Warrigal wrote:
I would intend to make the new USD Vouchers an Eligible
Currency with the support
On Tuesday 25 November 2008 01:27:59 pm Elliott Hird wrote:
time, unless the winner has transferred the VP to him.
Y'know, you B players really need to get used to the way we use
pronouns around here.
by a set of explicit rules. If Wooble is
so defined, then e is a nomic; the interpretation of the rules is
perfectly clear. The question is a matter of worldly fact.
Pavitra
clause.)
Pavitra
On Friday 28 November 2008 09:44:35 am Kerim Aydin wrote:
The unappealable thing hasn't changed, I think it was always that
way, so it's just attitudes somehow, don't know why. I have
noticed Callers tend to put much less effort into arguments than
they used to, and original judges aren't
On Friday 28 November 2008 12:10:05 pm Ed Murphy wrote:
An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is
always applicable. The valid judgements for this question
are as follows, based on the truth or falsity of the statement at
the time the inquiry case was
On Friday 28 November 2008 09:11:04 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:03 PM, Pavitra
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's going on with this? Are we stalled again?
Yes. 2 of you are foolishly voting with the werewolf to lynch me
instead of ehird, who was granted power
On Saturday 29 November 2008 02:05:59 pm Pavitra wrote:
We should really have larger rewards for deputisation. We can't
afford to keep leaving offices empty like this.
Proto-proposal: Avoid Empty Offices (AI=2, II=2)
{
Amend rule 1006 (Offices) by inserting the following paragraph after
On Sunday 30 November 2008 09:04:40 am Alexander Smith wrote:
At this point, I admitted
what had happened; and the other players there considered it to be
unacceptable to lie about the number of cards played, even though
it was acceptable to lie about their values.
I've always played that you
On Sunday 30 November 2008 01:40:59 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I leave the Werewolves contract.
Me too.
Pavitra
1 - 100 of 439 matches
Mail list logo
