DIS: Re: BUS: A different sort of subgame-in-a-single-rule

On Sunday, October 20, 2019 7:04 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > Right now, I submit the following proposal, "Undo This Proposal", AI 1: > > Create a new Power-0.5 rule, "Repeal This Rule": > {{{ > When this rule is repealed by a proposal, the author of that proposal > wins the game. >

Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft

On Sunday, October 20, 2019 7:39 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > On Sunday, October 20, 2019 6:09 AM, Aris Merchant > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote: > > A draft follows. I'm aware my ordering is... unconventional. It's for > > the befuddlement of future gen

Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft

On Sunday, October 20, 2019 6:09 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: > A draft follows. I'm aware my ordering is... unconventional. It's for > the befuddlement of future generations, and is all part of the fun. > > -Aris Jason Cobb is a co-author to 8256 as well. I don't see any other errors. -twg

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration

On Friday, October 18, 2019 8:41 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > Sounds fun (only half sarcasm). It's ok, we're all snerds here. :P -twg

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration

On Friday, October 18, 2019 8:25 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > On 10/18/19 4:23 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Point of order: I didn't receive nch's message. > > > > -twg > > > It appears to have made it to the forum, as it's in the archive: > https:

DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] R2478 Fix

On Friday, October 18, 2019 8:11 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > I submit the following proposal: > > Title: R2478 Fix > > AI: 1.7 > > Text: > > { > > Amend Rule 2478 ("Vigilante Justice") by replacing the text "a person > (the perp) who plays the game" with the text "a player (the perp)". > > } > > -- >

DIS: Re: BUS: Registration

On Friday, October 18, 2019 8:11 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > On 10/18/19 3:24 PM, Nch wrote: > > I register. I pledge not to foolishly deregister. > > > > --- > > Nch > > I cause nch to receive a Welcome Package. > > -- > Jason Cobb Point of order: I didn't receive nch's message. -twg

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ruleset Thesis

On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 2:02 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > On 10/15/19 6:53 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Further philosophising: if all the rules_were_ combined into one rule, > > would > > there be any meaningful semantic difference from the current "ruleset"

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ruleset Thesis

On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 10:30 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 5:01 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 10/14/2019 7:56 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > > However, I would still argue that the rules should, at least ideally, > > > avoid > >

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto: Interesting Chambers v2

On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 3:11 AM, James Cook wrote: > I've wondered before whether people have planted some snag like this > in Agora's history that new players like me have no practical way to > know about. > > This is a quite elegantly simple way to implement my fear, with > probably no bad

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ruleset Thesis

On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 5:01 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On 10/14/2019 7:56 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > However, I would still argue that the rules should, at least ideally, avoid > > circular dependencies, even if only as a matter of idealism. I've attached > > to this email an svg file that I di

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto: Interesting Chambers v2

On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 5:51 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 8:11 PM James Cook wrote: > > I've wondered before whether people have planted some snag like this > > in Agora's history that new players like me have no practical way to > > know about. > > This is a quite ele

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto: Interesting Chambers v2

On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 5:44 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 10:00 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Putting untracked things like this is the Crime of Invisibilitating, > > which is a crime that is defined in an untracked thing like this. > > I was under the impression that that

DIS: Re: OFF: End of October zombie auction

On Monday, October 14, 2019 2:16 PM, James Cook wrote: > Sorry, this is wrong. The auction has ended but I missed some bids. Will > send an update later. Yeah I was going to say, I think Murphy outbid me. Grr. I point my nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Something vaguely interesting

On Saturday, October 12, 2019 7:56 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > I'm working on a writing up a thesis for this. I'll publish my code > concurrently (not a pledge), at which point you could play with it all > you want. Some other analyses I've considered: > > - Number of dependents by rule > > - Number

DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Subgame-in-a-Rule contest vote open!

On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 6:38 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Unofficial CONTEST: Subgame in a Rule. > > Ranked-choice voting (ballot should be a list), options are (full > submissions below): > > - ais523 (Fruits of Persistence and Patience) > - Falsifian (Clairvoyant Roshambo) > - Jason Cobb

DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie life cycle

On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 1:59 PM, James Cook wrote: > On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 12:08, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > > > On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 12:21 AM, James Cook jc...@cs.berkeley.edu > > wrote: > > > > > I intend, with notice, to flip Jacob

Re: DIS: Proto: Extenuating Circumstances

On Monday, September 30, 2019 2:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On 9/30/2019 7:12 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a player NEED NOT violate the rules > > or > > perform any IMPOSSIBLE action. > > Performing an IMPOSSIBLE action is

Re: DIS: Proto: Extenuating Circumstances

On Sunday, September 29, 2019 5:03 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: > Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, SHALL implies MAY and SHALL NOT > implies NEED NOT. > > Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, if someone CANNOT do something, e > NEED NOT do it. > > The prior provisions of this rule d

DIS: Re: BUS: Whichcraft

is crosses my line from > "useful style guide" to "overly proscriptive". (and I tend to prefer > "which"). > > On Wed, Sep 25, [2019](tel:2019) at 6:20 AM Timon Walshe-Grey > wrote: >> >> I intend, without objection, to clean Rule 107, &qu

Re: DIS: Proto: Interesting Chambers v2

on my phone so can't provide detailed arguments (and sorry for the execrable mess it will undoubtedly produce of the reply chain), but I would argue that the entity defining switches, assets etc. is not any one rule, but rather the Ruleset as a whole → repealing a rule counts as amending the rul

Re: DIS: Acting on Behalf for Dependent Actions

On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 1:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On 9/17/2019 7:40 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > The requirement here is that a person must "publicly post" > > support/objection > > to the intent. Since a person CANNOT act-on-behalf to send a message > > (R2466), it seems to me that it i

Re: DIS: Proto for a new economics system

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 fewer will > be issued. Thinking about this more, I'm not sure this is a benefit at all. If c

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

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 10:11 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I point the finger at myself for failing to assign the below CFJ in a > timely fashion (given the time-sensitive nature of the CFJ claim). Oh right, I'm Referee now. Clearly the violation occurred. I don't believe it was willful, pr

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

Gratuitous: Since spaaace was repealed before the date on the Evil Astronomor report, this is definitely not PARADOXICAL as I originally intended it to be (whether or not it would even been otherwise). Whether that makes TRUE or FALSE is something I don't feel qualified to answer, though... -tw

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter (Weekly Report)

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 5:38 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > On 9/11/19 12:51 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > Blot history does not appear to have been recorded for several months, > > > so I have restarted it from the time of the last report. > > > I

Re: DIS: Proto for a new economics system

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 7:58 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: > I don't know what you want to improve about the core system. The most > change that has been enacted in the past few months to the core system > are minor fixes that clarify things. Sure, we find a broken bit > sometimes, but those ar

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8215A-8234A

On Sunday, September 8, 2019 1:03 AM, Jason Cobb wrote: > R. Lee found in CFJ 3638 [0] that an action that creates something that > is not "valid" does not render the action INEFFECTIVE. This would seem > to imply that the word "valid" doesn't have a special meaning in > determining whether an act

DIS: Re: BUS: Lime ribbon claim

On Saturday, September 7, 2019 6:50 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > After fixing the resolution of Prop 8232, it looks like I qualify for a > Lime ribbon. Thanks for pointing that out, twg. > > I award myself a Lime ribbon for the adoption of proposals 8222, 8228, > and 8234. > > -- > Jason Cobb Congrat

Re: DIS: Fwd: BUS: Proposal

On Saturday, September 7, 2019 6:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > This was meant to go to DIS but twg's addressing is still weird... I've opened multiple tickets about it with the people who make my email client, but still no luck! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ At this point, I'm honestly considering setting up a compl

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

On Tuesday, September 3, 2019 11:22 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > Luckily for everyone, this very question is settled by precedent. See CFJ 1836 > [1], which basically states that incidentally included information is > unratified. > > -Aris > > [1] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1

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

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 > > CFJ was initiated, if that was what you were going for. > > > > -- > > Jason Cobb > > Al

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

On Tuesday, September 3, 2019 6:49 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > I change my vote on Proposal 8229 to FOR (if this passes it fixes my > report about the future, which might actually ratify that Corona and L > are players...). Ah blast, it didn't occur to me that that could resolve the superposition as

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

On Monday, September 2, 2019 8:46 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > Notice of Honour: > > +1 twg for bringing that criminal scum officer to justice > > -1 Jason Cobb for trying to create chaos > > > -- > Jason Cobb Not sure if it was clear, but if all went according to plan, you are currently in a superp

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

On Saturday, August 31, 2019 1:51 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > On 8/31/19 9:42 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > AGAINST. I believe this creates a circular definition: a Promulgator is > > someone who has a weekly duty to publish a report of a regulation, and a > > regulation

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8215-8234

For what it's worth, since temporary deputisation is now a thing, it would be entirely POSSIBLE to keep the Promotor duties turning over without your input, and without even needing to remove you from office - leaving you free to take a leave of absence if you need to. I kinda don't want to brea

DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] Re-up judge interest please

On Thursday, August 1, 2019 2:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Please reply to this thread to indicate interest in judging. > > We've had people favor cases lately that are technically "uninterested" by > my tracking, and also people technically "interested" dropping cases. So > time for a refresh. > >

DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Contract party fixes

...which proposal in the affixed message? :P (I know the one you mean but I don't think it's unambiguous enough to satisfy R478.) -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Sunday, July 28, 2019 6:18 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > Oops, I sent that half typed. If I haven't submitted the proposal

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Increased transparency

On Sunday, July 28, 2019 6:09 PM, Edward Murphy wrote: > Proposal: Increased transparency > (AI = 3) > > Amend Rule 2438 (Ribbons) by replacing the sections for the relevant > types of ribbons with the following sections: > > Green (G): While the holder of an elected office has held it >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Cancelling Erroneous Proposals

AM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > > > > Clarification: I mean, what should happen? Right now the answer is clear > > > that the Assessor gets to deal with eir own cancellation motion, which may > > > not be the best idea. > > > Jason Cobb > > > On 7/27

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3756 judged FALSE

On 24 Jul 2019, 08:53, Jason Cobb < jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > Also, is there any way that I can get CFJ 3645? I'm sorry, that's a typo - Alexis' scam was judged in CFJ 3465, not 3645. -twg

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: space

On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 4:39 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > On 7/23/19 6:27 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > Amend Rule 2591 by replacing the text "Spaceships are a class of fixed > > asset" with "Spaceships are a class of fixed indestructible asset". > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business

On Monday, July 22, 2019 10:41 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > On 7/22/19 6:39 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > On Monday, July 22, 2019 9:02 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu wrote: > > > I confirm (in public here) that there is a contract with at least 2 > > > parties, known as N

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business

On Monday, July 22, 2019 9:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I confirm (in public here) that there is a contract with at least 2 > parties, known as NSC. Can you point out in which message(s) - which, per Rule 2519, must be public - the parties consented to the agreement, thereby causing it to become

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Herald polling honor

On Monday, July 22, 2019 2:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On 7/21/2019 7:01 PM,ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > > Agora used to be exclusively bottom-posted, but there was an influx of > > new players a while back whose email clients top-posted by default and > > it's lead to a mix of quoting styles

Re: DIS: Editorial fixes

> One thing is Agorans have a weird tendency to Overcapitalize things to > somehow emphasize their Importance. I always thought the point of this was to indicate that something was a term of art. Though I'll grant you it's not at all used consistently. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On

Re: DIS: Zombies and fee-based actions

cedent you can do anything like that on behalf of a zombie including > > just making a post to a public forum > > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 7:28 AM Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > > > > > I just noticed that, according to R2579/0: > > > > &

DIS: Zombies and fee-based actions

I just noticed that, according to R2579/0: To perform a fee-based action, an entity (the Actor) who is otherwise permitted to perform the action must announce that e is performing the action; the announcement must specify the correct set of assets for the fee and indicate i

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: End of July zombie auction

I thought that might be the case but had a nagging feeling that I was forgetting something. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Saturday, July 13, 2019 8:36 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > I don't believe there are any current decisions. > > Jason Cobb > > On 7/13/19 3:34 P

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bribery (attn. Tailor)

I favour this CFJ, and request that I be added to the list of interested judges. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, July 11, 2019 12:11 AM, Jason Cobb wrote: > If I CAN do so, I award myself a Transparent ribbon. > > - I earned a Red ribbon for proposals earlier this week (81

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of proposals 8188-8195

Wowzas. How on earth did we (almost) all completely miss an entire batch of proposals? -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 1:59 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > --- > > Results as of end of 7 day voting period: > > The quorum for all below decisions was 7. > > Voting stre

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The ruleset is too long so (attn. Rulekeepor)

1 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > I don't really see how that could be exploitable. Anyway, whenever a > rule says "If X occurs, Y occurs", that rule is pretty clearly the > agent for Y. > > -Aris > > On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 8:22 AM Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red w

DIS: Re: BUS: The ruleset is too long so (attn. Rulekeepor)

usiness/2019-June/040615.html > > [1]: > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2019-June/054363.html > > Jason Cobb > > On 7/5/19 10:03 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > CFJ: Rule 2598 has been repealed. > > Gratuitous argument f

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3750 Assigned to twg

On Wednesday, July 3, 2019 10:11 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > because G. is not a player Or rather, because G. IS a player. (Unless e surreptitiously deregistered recently, I suppose. Stranger things have happened.) -twg

DIS: Re: BUS: a cheap title

Ooh, I like questions about the currency system. I favour this CFJ. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, July 1, 2019 3:29 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I award myself the Patent Title "nouveau riche" by paying a fee of 1 Coin > for this sole purpose. > > [To avoid any sort of no f

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Birthday Ribbon

Aww. *blows party popper mournfully* -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Sunday, June 30, 2019 7:49 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On 6/30/2019 7:52 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > I intend, with 10 Agoran Consent, to banish Rule 2596. > > I object.

Fw: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: End of June Zombie Auction

ted unless the Auctioneer is able > to give away each item in each of the Auction's lots." > > If Agora was unable to transfer the zombie ownership at the time the auction > was initiated, does that mean the initiation failed in the first place? > > On Saturday, June 15,

Re: Failures to Reenact (was Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8152-8163)

eb 2019 at 23:01, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > > > Also, CFJ: "Rule 2571 is guilty of violating Rule 105." This is not really > > relevant in the scheme of things, I just want it to show up in G.'s CFJ > > history to bewilder future historians. > &

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: End of June Zombie Auction

If I recall correctly, there used to be a thing in rule 2551 that meant the clause "if the auctioneer CAN transfer the items... at will" didn't apply if the auctioneer was Agora. That seems to have gotten lost somewhere along the line - possibly in proposal 8113, which removed a sentence but I'm

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3732 assigned to Murphy

Yeah, I could have phrased that a lot better, couldn't I? Sorry. :P If Murphy chooses not to address the 2019 election (or doesn't notice the dates) I will resubmit the CFJ with better grammar. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 3:10 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >

Re: DIS: Re: implausible denial

If we happen to be amending that rule anyway, could we also replace "inquiry case" with "Call for Judgement"? I know there're several CFJs saying that it works fine as a synonym even though "inquiry case" isn't defined any more, but it confused me to no end the first few times I read the rules a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Blots

That is quite scary, but I think we're OK - R2577 says "CANNOT be destroyed except by a proposal or rule", not "CAN be destroyed by a proposal or rule", so although it's not _preventing_ unadopted proposals from defining how to destroy assets, it's not creating a _mechanism_ by which they might

DIS: Re: BUS: Referee Fix

I believe this needs to be "and CAN, and in a timely fashion SHALL, conclude the investigation". Otherwise, the "in a timely fashion" would also apply to the CAN, so that the Referee COULD NOT conclude an investigation if it were overdue. I think. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Sund

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Prime Minister] there's no confidence in the economy, so...

01 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > If e didn’t, then the election announcement did not have a clear list of > the valid options and is therefore invalid per CFJ No Number! > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 10:59 AM Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > > > I vote for Corona in the ongoi

Re: DIS: (Attn omd) mailman.agoranomic.org HTTPS certificate error

Protip: cron has built-in email forwarding - you can add `MAILTO="c.ome...@gmail.com"` at the start of your crontab to get it to send you anything that gets printed to stderr. (I feel your pain. At least one of my domain names goes down every three months like clockwork.) -twg ‐‐‐ Origin

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

Yes, that is in fact exactly what I argue in the judgement to CFJ 3724. :P I expect D. Margaux meant something like "its outcome, _if resolved now_, would be ADOPTED". I imagine e would have resubmitted it with that wording, after realising that the initial wording was wrong, if it hadn't become

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

On Friday, March 8, 2019 2:50 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > You don't have to worry about the Disclaimer in the ADoP's report - > disclaimers are used all the time to ratify false things, under the guidance > of R2202 you're supposed to use disclaimers when reporting false things > for the purpose of r

DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3722-3725

Attached as individual text files. Please have a look and let me know what you think... -twg === CFJ 3724 === An Agoran Decision whether to adopt Proposal 8164 was initiated and its outcome is ADOPTED. ---

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

I'm sorry, our messages crossed. I think it will be trivially determinable from my judgement to 3723 though. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Friday, March 8, 2019 12:12 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I favor this case. > > On 3/7/2019 4:08 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > > I CoE this attempt

DIS: Attn H. Promotor (Re: BUS: Attn H. Referee: Proposal 8164 CFJs)

Will type up my judgement later when I'm actually at home, but I am fairly certain that the correct judgements are as follows: CFJ 3722 - TRUE. CFJ 3723 - FALSE. CFJ 3724 - FALSE. Aris, I believe that Proposal 8164 has become undistributed, so could you please attempt to distribute it once more

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

t think any application would be retroactive, I think it would > > > be "evidence previously unavailable is now revealed". But because I'm > > > interested in that retroactivity question, I haven't provided the > > > original statement text at this poin

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8165-8173

Sorry. I did see your original comment but completely forgot to get around to writing a revised proposal. -twg Original Message On 4 Mar 2019, 02:18, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > This is broken. As I pointed out in a previous comment on this proposal, > rule [2591](tel:2591) no lon

Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft

I don't see any errors in this draft, but I've just noticed that the previous Promotor report omitted CuddleBeam's proposal "And the next thing you know, Space Ships are going to have more rights than people", which has now been self-ratified out of existence. It was submitted in this message:

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

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 complica

DIS: Re: BUS: Politics

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 bot

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

arbitrary rule changes to be > > > made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted within a four-week period.” > > > Note the “and/or.” Nothing here prevents arbitrary proposals from being > > > adopted—it just prevents them from changing the rules upon doing so. > >

DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

On Friday, February 22, 2019 4:08 AM, James Cook wrote: > Adoption Index: 3.05 Don't think anyone's spotted this yet, but AI can only be a multiple of 0.1. If I recall correctly, invalid values default to 1.0, which wouldn't work here. (Or even worse, might work _only in part_.) -twg

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

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 specif

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

Already on my radar! -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 1:40 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On 2/18/2019 5:18 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > > This is such a mess lol. > > Patent title suggestion for everyone involved in the mess: > "Badge of the Best Intents". > > H.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent (+SPOOKY)

> > > On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:32 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > > Hold on, are we sure G. isn't in on it? > > -twg > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > > > On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:31 PM, D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com

DIS: Re: BUS: Another useful string for future reference

gwt-uMHZuFGagIXdvlHIu9GIl1Wa0BCajVXbg82b0BSesVmcpRnblBSZ2FGagwiclRWYlJHIyFWZkBCL19WW ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, February 18, 2019 8:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > 784743443F7C486AF33A5FEA440ECD9F92B02CA7B12E19EBFB5330863B050F7C > A1196E9457A2E1FFCE97EC027FC82CD4790CCB33C666734

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

ater on. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:22 PM, James Cook wrote: > On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 23:15, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > > > On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:05 PM, James Cook jc...@cs.berkeley.edu > > wrote: > > &

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent (+SPOOKY)

Hold on, are we sure G. isn't in on it? -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:31 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > Like Gaelan, I do the following, and I cause ATMunn to do the following: > > - object to any intents announced in the quoted message. > - if quoted messa

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

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. I think this part of R106 accounts for that: Except as prohibited by other rules, a proposal that takes

DIS: Re: BUS: Cleanliness

. For example, > I think Judgment is as common as Judgement, or nearly so, in both > American and British English, and historically Judgment was more > common. Was there another reason to make the change?) > > On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 17:32, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > >

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

My vote is {Gaelan, Telnaior, CuddleBeam, twg} - ordered firstly by whether or not it actually works (ruleset glitches notwithstanding), and secondly by how serious the implications are. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:00 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > VOTE

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter

On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:17 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > CoE—My blots were ratified to 0 without objection. Of course, intents are > broken, but I need to put in this CoE so that ratification of this report > won’t overwrite the retroactive effect of any fix. Can you not just play _normally_

DIS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

;: First time I've been referred to as CuddlebeamS (I think > all of my Agoran aliases so far are Cuddlebeam, CuddleBeam and Cuddle Beam, > lol)  > > I don't know if that's a big enough issue to CoE or not. > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 8:13 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Read the Ruleset week - summary of entries

Oh, good point lol. Ignore me. :P -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, February 18, 2019 1:47 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > AFAICT it wasn't submitted during Read the Ruleset Week? > > On 2/17/2019 4:36 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > Ooh, in that c

Re: DIS: Re: More Politicking

Yes, I think it does make it INEFFECTIVE, per 2579's "must state the correct set of assets for the fee". But feel free to CFJ. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, February 18, 2019 12:39 AM, D. Margaux wrote: > > > > On Feb 17, 2019, at 7:04 PM, D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com w

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Space Battle 003

I think this reduces twg’s armor from 10 to 0 > and Gaelan’s stays at 10? I confess I haven’t paid much attention to the > space rules though recently. > If this is accurate I’ll resend to official > > > On Feb 18, 2019, at 12:37 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:

DIS: Re: OFF: Space Battle 003

(Pssst! For this to be EFFECTIVE I think you also have to say by how much each of our Armour was reduced by.) -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, February 18, 2019 5:34 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > Resolved battle 003: > > Gaelan spent 11 energy. > > Twg spent 0 energy. > > I think th

DIS: Impossible. Perhaps the archives are incomplete.

D. Margaux, Did you ever get around to resolving Space Battle 3 (Gaelan vs. me)? I have an Energy value privately sent by me to you in my outbox, and I think I recall Gaelan saying e'd sent you one as well, but I can't find any resolution message from you. Furthermore, going forward, can I req

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

An alternative is: "Change the gamestate [including the ruleset] to what it would have been if the below amendment had taken effect immediately after Proposal 7815, and if no further changes had been made to Rule 2124 since. Designate this change as a convergence." I believe this would allow the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

The closest thing I could find is this: which relates to UNDEAD, but to the best of my knowledge Aris registered well after UNDEAD was a major thing. My default assumption whenever something like this happens is that who

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

On Monday, February 18, 2019 8:24 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > I hngah 50 coins for Aris Merchant // Title: 50 coins Adoption index: 1.0 Author: CuddleBeam Aris Merchant

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Read the Ruleset week - summary of entries

Ooh, in that case can we count my assertion that Rule 2571 is guilty of violating Rule 105? :P I also kind of feel that scams that don't actually work (i.e. mine) should be disqualified by default. -twg ‐‐‐ Origin

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More Politicking

ime around. Hmm. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, February 18, 2019 12:20 AM, D. Margaux wrote: > > > > On Feb 17, 2019, at 7:15 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > > Forgive me, but I can't seem to find the rule(s) where the action of > &

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

On Sunday, February 17, 2019 7:34 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > > > On Feb 17, 2019, at 2:17 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > > Yes you did: (1) the power to assign a judge to a CFJ in the same message > > it's initiated; and (2) the power to perso

DIS: Re: BUS: More Politicking

On Monday, February 18, 2019 12:04 AM, D. Margaux wrote: > I cause each of Ronald Ray-Gun, Politician McPoliticianface, Benjamin > Surreali, Lex Luthor, Loseston Churchvalley, Genghis Khaan, Hillary > Rodham Clinton, Zeno of Citium, Eric, and Xi Kingpin to vote for Ronald > Ray-Gun for Host

<    1   2   3   4   5   >