is a Player...
-zefram
anyway, but the
Pragmatic legislation can't handle it. I always said General Chaos's
drafting sucked, but no one listened.
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
But what about the utility of calling a CFJ with only one eligible
judge (of the caller's choosing)? I agree, nice one, Zefram!
Heh. What I like is that there's a procedure to unlink the CFJs,
which would resolve the problem, but you can't do it until a Judge has
been
-- then
there's no need for preemptive unlinking. Unlinking is a matter to be
decided on the content of the CFJs, so I think that's better left to a
Judge rather than the CotC.
-zefram
for a Rule
would be by a vote resembling a Proposal, possibly actually a Proposal.
Interested? If so, I'll draft a proto-Proposal.
-zefram
sets the defaults, and Rule 2126, which allows modifications by
expenditure of VCs. Rule 106 says the eligible voters are the active
players, but I don't see anything that says when that's determined,
so my interpretation is that eligibility should be determined at the
time of voting.
-zefram
.
I think that would be confusing. I think the annotation should consist
of the legal holding that is to be applied. Consider: potentially we
could have annotations from other sources; it would be clearest to have
all annotations expressed in the same form.
-zefram
Ed Murphy wrote:
Amend the rule titled Fantasy Rule Changes to have number 105,
Please don't renumber Rules. It screws up the amendment numbers (though
I see they're no longer formally defined).
-zefram
,
then why not generalise the concept? In addition to a name I thought
the rules could also specify a flag, an anthem, a motto, and so on.
A coat of arms is a good one to have too.
-zefram
has a meaning from ordinary English, which I believe now
prevails, but that meaning has no numerical aspect.
-zefram
of an
office, should not. Probably the way to handle it is that an amendment
by default does not extend the expiry date, but the proposal doing the
amendment has the option to explicitly extend it. Thanks for pointing
out the issue.
-zefram
vote.) If there are no AGAINST votes at all then we
have no choice but to leave the realm of rational numbers. Calling it
Unanimity just obscures its true behaviour as a transfinite hyperreal.
-zefram
changed (i.e., the definition has
been repealed).
If you want to ressurect the old definition then reenact it. You can't
ignore a repeal just because it's turned out to be inconvenient.
-zefram
is not how aleph-null is defined).
Curious. I rather thought it was. Which infinite hyperreal do you
suggest in its place? I must confess I have never formally studied
nonstandard analysis.
-zefram
hyperreal.
Applying the same logic to the case of zero votes both ways, we could
reasonably pick either the limit of n/n as n approaches zero, which is 1,
or the limit of 0/n as n approaches zero, which is 0. The present Rule
chooses the latter of these.
-zefram
voting index would then be 1 (i.e., 100%). We can translate
VIs and Powers: 1 - 50%, 2 - 67%, 3 - 75%, 4 - 80%, Unanimity - 100%.
This still needs a special case for where there are no votes cast,
but we don't need infinite numbers there.
-zefram
Michael Slone wrote:
Zefram was a Fugitive from Justice for over nine years.
That's funny, I don't recall having any Blots when I deregistered.
Now that Blots and Stain are no longer defined by the Rules, do the
references to them in Rule 1437 mean that they still exist with their
previous
need anyone's vote but my own, but I think unilaterally
repealing a trophy would be bad form. That's why when I realised a
proposal could take effect with such a low AI I proposed a new trophy
rule to take advantage of it.
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
This isn't a bug, it's a feature.
What's the advantage?
-zefram
, then that entity along with all
# its properties shall cease to exist.
So, specifically, the numerical comparison properties of Unanimity have
ceased to exist.
-zefram
.
-zefram
is greater than 1 is false, and
Unanimity is not greater than 1 is also false.
-zefram
Taral wrote:
Zefram is a Player.
Repeal the Rule just created.
I was wondering what would happen if we created and then repealed a rule
along the lines of
This Rule defines the Earth. The Earth is a planet approximately
40 Mm in circumference, orbiting the yellow dwarf star
, if you're dead set on establishing a legal
fiction then please at least draft it correctly.
-zefram
Taral wrote:
This is a perfectly reasonable use of deem.
I find it difficult to imagine a reasonable use of deem. We should
avoid legal fictions as far as possible.
I read deemed like defined here.
Let's write it like defined too, then.
-zefram
Michael Norrish wrote:
Good. I feel that Zefram is objecting to the latter (but perhaps I am
mis-representing him, in which case I apologise),
I'm not objecting to the latter. Actually I do have an objection to
retroactive effects, which is what that one is, but that's a much smaller
objection
consider the baroque complexity to be a bad thing.
-zefram
features leaving Rishonomic open
to invasion in the Risho-Agora war. It seems embarrassing to now be
suffering from this problem on our own territory.
-zefram
a registered Player.
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
I, for one, never implied that pineapple-ness, etc. was exclusive
of being a person. However, in the message quoted below, Zefram implies
(by switching back to being a human) that e believed that, in deeming
emself to be an avocado, e was deeming emself to not be a person.
I
Michael Slone wrote:
The format of whitespace in rules is up to the Rulekeepor, so this
shouldn't end up making a difference.
I'm more concerned that the loss of indentation might be interpreted as
breaking the block quote nature of the new rule text.
-zefram
to make?
-zefram
the ultimate repository of rule data is a plain text file (which
I would maintain under CVS), and all other formats (such as the logical
rulesets, and web-based browsing) are automatically derived from that.
-zefram
I've posted the updated FLR to agora-official, but it's held for moderator
approval due to size. In the interim, the new version can be retrieved
from
http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/tmp/full-ruleset
This URL won't remain valid indefinitely.
-zefram
is usually used in practice under that name is
actually UTC.
-zefram
number; add a precedence clause to 2131 to
restore the high precedence that the number 105 gave it; enact a Power=4
rule that defines the concept of a rule, and in particular says that
rule numbers cannot change.
-zefram
to duplicate all
the mechanisms that exist for rules, and then we'd have two parallel
mechanisms doing the same thing.
I also note that R1503 already says that the rules are a binding agreement
between players. If you want to replace rules with contracts, well,
it's already done.
-zefram
with by contracts, of course.
As for the specific current use, the sole existing Agoran Contract doesn't
look anything like a subgame. Even if Agoran Contracts are to be retained
for subgames, I think the Envoy should be governed by an ordinary rule.
-zefram
they had previously had. This did not cause any rule to acquire a number
previously used by a different rule, which is what's going on here.
-zefram
Ed Murphy wrote:
But the concept (whether a player is turned or unturned) does still
exist, so the paragraph should be amended to refer to it properly.
Ah, I didn't realise that that was what it was about.
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
The database I'm working on in FLR format
Ah, cool. Please show me (privately) a sample of your data. I'd like
to see how to fit it together with what I'm doing.
-zefram
submit a Motion on CFJ 1612 to issue
|an Order of Annotation.
-zefram
the framework on which to hang the text.
http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/agora/rules_history.txt
This listing includes 17 rules for which I have not yet been able to
resolve conflicts between multiple versions of the history. If anyone
has mail logs that shed light on these situations, please let me know
Here's the current state of my historical rule text work:
http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/agora/rules_text.txt
(Note the file is 2.9 MB in size.) This file is specifically concerned
with the text of each rule, and does not indicate mutability or titles.
Problems with the dataset are flagged
published but which I've recovered
from Michael's archive of voting reports.)
-zefram
You may all be interested in this old ruleset from 1993-08:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.abstract/msg/86da94d8a3ba0ba6
Wes pointed this out to me, as an initial response after I contacted
him about archives. I'll be adding it to my database.
-zefram
For the curious, I've posted some of the oldest rulesets I've found at
http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/agora/. In addition to the 1993-08-28
ruleset that I pointed at some days ago, there's a fascinating version
from 1994-11-22 provided by Vanyel. This version is from when amendment
numbers were
proposals and votes via HTTP would make those inherently private acts,
denying us a public record and the opportunity for public comment.
-zefram
automation posts the FLR monthly,
generates and posts the SLR weekly, puts both on my web page whenever
I make a change, and checks that the current FLR is consistent with
the preceding history. I still edit the FLR itself manually, for the
time being.)
-zefram
. I'm up for developing it, if no one else is.
For clarity: I'm all in favour of web pages as a way to learn about the
game and examine its state. I oppose the use of web interfaces as a
medium for taking game actions. We should use each medium for what it
is suitable for.
-zefram
Since no one else has stepped forward, I've put together a
web page to describe Agora to outsiders. It's currently at
http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/tmp/agoranomic.html. Taral, please put
it up on http://www.agoranomic.org. Amendments are welcome. Also,
as I do only structural markup
. For example,
the Speaker may by announcement cause this rule to repeal itself.
-zefram
*prod*
The website's still in its old crap form. Please put up the page that
I drafted at http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/tmp/agoranomic.html.
-zefram
still need someone to fill the various roles of
authority that were in my list. Making the Speaker collect votes seems
to be a recent aberration, and is the exception to my general finding.
-zefram
in this area produces. That will probably give
us a better idea of what we should be doing.
-zefram
of currency game.
While I'm opposing the Beads proposal, I'd like to adopt the AIMD
provision into the current VC/VLOP economy. Halving all VCs and VLOPs
quarterly would prevent inflation, and we could also do away with the
VLOP reset at game ends.
-zefram
. Speakership passing to the most senior player was
something I previously put into R786/6 back in 1997 and which stayed in
that rule until 2005.]
}}}
-zefram
but more that
the capitalist approach dominates all. This is the interface between
the capitalist world and the creative world.
So, in conclusion, you can't outsource nomic activity, and I remain
convinced that any attempt to build a capitalist economy within a nomic
is doomed to failure.
-zefram
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
I'd better check the rules to make sure the CotC can throw out
obviously frivolous CFJs...
The Excess CFJ mechanism would suffice to stem such a large flow --
unless, of course, the CotC is in on the conspiracy.
-zefram
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
Do you have a link to the agoranomic
archive of the Pineapple Partnership delivering judgment?
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2007-March/006180.html
-zefram
.
-zefram
on
2005-08-06, when P4834 did a full text replacement on R2089.
Could those who were playing at the time comment on the consequences of
the error? Goethe?
You'll be pleased to hear that as far as I can tell this is the only
error of its kind since 2001-05.
-zefram
Proposal Pool Report
You're not required to publish the contents of the proposal pool any more.
-zefram
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
I'm voting against this, because I don't see Zefram adding emself to
the map in this proposal.
Eep. I thought I'd attract votes against if I *did* add anything.
-zefram
perl scripts, a couple of newer python scripts, and a couple of PHP
web scripts.
I have access to PostgreSQL, so I should be able to take the database
files in binary form. Please put a tarball up for me to pull via HTTP.
-zefram
the
machinery for adopting Democratic proposals would be at Power=3, with
strictly limited scope for interference by Power=1 rules.
-zefram
seriously
hinder its adoption
* allow the adoption of Democratic proposals where the proportion
of players expressing an opinion who vote in favour is less
than AI/(AI+1)
}}}
-zefram
not particularly onerous.
-zefram
be a good idea, I'm just wary
about effectively removing the Ordinary Proposal concept from the game.
I'm up for it as a temporary measure, at least.
-zefram
Michael Slone wrote:
I don't think the text in the Subject: line has any legal effect,
I think in this case it conveys intent with sufficient clarity.
you might want to post a message to agora-business with body ``I
register'' to make sure.
I agree. Clearer would be better.
-zefram
some sort of evidence for a judgement of TRUE in
CFJ 1630.
-zefram
quazie wrote:
is this you calling and assigning the CFJs?
I called them in the message CFJ on interpretation of amendments.
-zefram
it is so severe that it cannot possibly
be justified under any reasonable theory of rights.
-zefram
. What was the intent?
-zefram
Zefram 8 0
This assumes that Quazie's spend of 2 VCs fall in the new week (which
is now subject to CFJ).
-zefram
are available to everyone.
We still could have done that, given that there were more of us awake
than there were Oligarchs awake, but it would have been more complex
and involved a lot more CFJs.
-zefram
945-1044. No one claimed that this was excessive.
-zefram
.
-zefram
-zefram
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
Which is more important, Zefram -- the Herald's report or all the VCs
and proposals?
What does my opinion matter? Let us consult the ruleset. The rules
don't appear to judge importance per se, but if we take Power to be a
measure of importance then VCs (R2126, Power=3
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
Kindly RTF follow-up.
Yes, I saw that (and Quazie's claim of error) immediately after posting.
Sorry.
Your correction was not to the PF, btw. Don't think that makes much
difference, now that we don't have the formal COE procedure any more.
-zefram
on the voting limits and
proposals. Thank you for taking care of these so quickly after the
week end. My comment on the missing Threat list wasn't intended to
carry any urgency.
I'm sorry that I've annoyed you. It has not been intentional.
-zefram
to limit the number of partnerships a player can enter into,
to prevent the exponential profusion of partnerships.
Am I allowed to ask questions like that here? What's the etiquette?
You're welcome to discuss the game. You might like to ask the Registrar
to list you as a Watcher in eir report.
-zefram
think we really have outgrown the three-level scheme.
-zefram
has come to mind seeing all the votes against
my AI=3 proposals: VCs should be earned only for Ordinary proposals.
Might have to increase the award to compensate.
-zefram
be a candidate for 1.5.
-zefram
Taral wrote:
What, did the duplicate proposal rule get repealed too?
Amended away in 2005. The rule itself (R1483) was then repealed in 2006,
its role taken over by R106.
-zefram
between Eris (present Distributor)
and Murphy (longest-serving player).
-zefram
that the first part is impossible.
I claim, as I discussed earlier, that the first part (corresponding to
P2) is a possible null change. Hence both parts are possible, hence
the whole amendment is possible. This matches the situation of P5,
which is *not* the situation that I describe in CFJ 1643.
-zefram
the would-be
Oligarchs can trivially muster.]
}}}
-zefram
by name.
Especially in this case, yes.
-zefram
to be when
other provisions of this rule set it, which would mean after a win a
partnership's VLOP would be reset to one, not zero as intended.
-zefram
to make non-natural persons not be
eligible voters on democratic proposals, rather than eligible with a limit
of zero. Not sure whether it makes any difference, though, and it's a
more complicated change, so I suggest leaving that for the time being.
-zefram
on the eligibility rules, and also depends
on your playerhood which is subject to an earlier CFJ. If you take my
suggestion to register unambiguously now, you'll want to resumbit your
CFJ after registering too.
-zefram
collector, nor contained
any formula explicating intent to initiate an Agoran decision.
-zefram
Michael Slone wrote:
(2) people who join in the middle of the voting period can't vote.
This could be construed as a feature. I thought it was intended as one.
-zefram
properly initiated
on proposals for the past few months, does the last paragraph of R2034
still manage to make the result announcements effective?
-zefram
or refused)
proves a lack of public agreement, but I think lack of public agreement
can be determined in other ways also.
-zefram
validity is determined
The last two should obviously be linked. Maybe some others should be
linked too. Comments?
-zefram
that can exercise the other functions of playerhood. We need
a bit of regulation, not outright extinguishment.
-zefram
1 - 100 of 937 matches
Mail list logo
