On 12 October 2013 03:17, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
If
a player's score has not been previously changed by the Rules, or
cannot be determined by reasonable effort, it is 0.
UNDECIDABLE; we have determined that eir score is not determinable by
reasonable effort (by the
On 8 August 2013 00:29, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
The quoted paragraph is intended to be explicitly mostly silent on the
matter, only using emoji as an example. Em⭕️ji is annoying, but so is
z̸̨̜͈̦̹̜͕̥͈̱̟̙̰͍͈̻̠̩̝͈͝a̵̱̳̣̗̳̣͍̭̣̝̲̠͚̤̞͢͠ͅl̨̨̢̙̫̣̖̭̖͍̦̞̠̹͞g̢̛̻͇̜̙̟̗̲͇̬̫͘̕o͔͇̺͎͍̞̦͖̥͔̝̕͢͟ͅ,
On 6 August 2013 01:25, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
One more CoE: As we see, people appeal judgements out of spite, and I expect
they pass judgements out of spite as well. In fact, in a discussion some
time ago it was already mentioned that this was expected in dictatorship
cases. I think
On 6 August 2013 02:25, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
Was it really necessary to post this out a week - 3 hours after
initiation, requiring a revote?
This is Fool's nomic now -- we just play it.
Oh, wait; no we don't.
On 6 August 2013 04:14, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
A person has the right to register and to
remain a player except where forbidden due to eir own
prior actions.
Needs handling for inactivity?
On 4 August 2013 09:43, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I'm not going to tell you that you *can't* have the fun of reconstructing
your own personal platonic state (to each eir own), but if it bogs us
down and distracts us from actually playing based on our own current
(non-platonic)
On 4 August 2013 18:19, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
In theory, Rule 217 should make the consensus platonically correct unless it
blatantly contradicts the text. In practice, it might not actually stand up
for 20 years, never mind the time before that wording existed and the
likelihood of
On 4 August 2013 00:22, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
This danger doesn't even sound plausible to me. Everyone's confused and goes
home, and never comes back? I doubt it.
More likely is that everyone gets sick of you acquiring and
maintaining your dictatorship in ways that go quite strongly
On 4 August 2013 02:54, com...@gmail.com wrote:
You may argue that after this long, there is probably *some* other reason why
the platonic gamestate is wrong, and a few have been proposed over the years.
But we try our best.
If sufficient mail archives were obtained, I for one would find
On 4 August 2013 05:01, Craig Daniel teu...@pobox.com wrote:
Man, I've tried that with B. Server discontinuities make it more
difficult than it's likely to be for Agora, to the point where as far
as I can tell the gamestate is that we're in a maybe-fixable emergency
but don't know which
On 2 August 2013 11:38, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
It's common enough to hear that classical logic is about truth while
intuitionistic is about provability or something like that, but I don't
buy it.
Classic logic is about irrefutability.
On 2 August 2013 11:26, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
Duhhh of course. I'll do it right away without looking closely. I mean it
DOES say EMEREGENCY... 8*b 8*b 8*b
*sigh*
On 2 August 2013 13:46, Benjamin Schultz ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com wrote:
FOR
NtttPF (and please vote as FOR*1 for unambiguity).
This whole thing strikes me as being in incredibly poor form and I
disapprove of it.
(People who were around to see me years ago can stop laughing now.)
On 23 July 2013 15:12, Benjamin Schultz ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com wrote:
Good luck on recording THAT in the reports.
It should be OK; it can be reported as G +/- n for some n, and it
should be easy to tell when it's greater than anyone else's number of
Yaks (always). Of course it would be
You could probably use encryption to get all of it.
On 3 July 2013 22:11, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
I think ehird's suggestion works, though; you could promise I perform
the specified action with the sha-1 hash long hex string here. For
bonus points, you could even transfer it to the Tree, leaving it unclear
who you'd made the promise
On 4 July 2013 02:06, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote:
Is the joke that I've been a Player before y'all and still am not an Elder?
(Or even registered.)
The joke is that I needed a subject line and am tired. But you should
totally register!
I also spend as many points as I can to purchase extra votes against
364. And cast those votes.
On 29 June 2013 13:37, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
Alex Hunt
what
I vote FOR 363 and do not vote on 364.
Fancy seeing you here. Hi!
It's been a bit too successful if you ask me!
Accordingly, I vote FOR all current proposals.
On 26 June 2013 13:03, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
[Missed one...]
Here I'll just number and repeat the four new proposals that were made.
You can vote by replying to this message, privately if you like.
I'll send out a full report shortly.
-Dan
344 (Yally):
Amend Rule 326 to read:
I propose that all rules be transmuted to mutable.
On 19 June 2013 20:12, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Anyone joining before #6 is an old hand I think, I mean, if you
suffered through the contract wars you are my brother... well, except
ehird...
Hah! My plan all along was to destroy the UNDEAD! And it worked!
I am tired, and I object to my being made inactive, and I vote PRESENT
on everything I can, and I register for Agora XX, and the first two
actions I do only in Agora, whilst the latter I do only in Agora XX,
my observation of tiredness not being counted as an action, have a
nice day.
On 11 June 2013 20:13, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
It could be argued that if the rules contained a self-contradictory
statement of this nature, then the entire ruleset would be effectively
meaningless and unusable, because, by the principle of explosion, all
statements would be
On 31 May 2013 18:08, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
0. Toy Nomic is a Nomic with the following rules. An
instance of Toy Nomic began on the Agora Business mailing
lists on 31-May-13.
ISIDTID!
On 29 May 2013 17:47, John Smith spamba...@yahoo.com wrote:
Also, for good measure, I CfJ (inquiry barring omd) on . This message
successfully initiated a criminal CfJ.
This seems like a malformed CFJ plus a possible lie.
On 20 May 2013 22:32, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
It might make an interesting CFJ whether the Miller-Rabin test is thus
sufficient
I think we decide CFJs based on much weaker things.
On 6 May 2013 03:35, Henri Bouchard henrib...@gmail.com wrote:
What is an entity?
Yes.
On 2 May 2013 18:18, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
Not everyone has Gmail's spam filtering!
Surely even mailman can weakly obfuscate addresses in the archives.
On 2 May 2013 17:58, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
The archives include the raw mbox, and I don't really want to
obfuscate that, because then the obfuscated version will end up
getting backed up and published someday ;p
By the way you should switch to mailing list software that doesn't
tell me
On 2 May 2013 18:03, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
The password is vaguely useful because you can use it to configure
your subscription preferences.
Well, there's no reason these settings couldn't just be confirmed (as
with subscription) or even operated entirely from email (cf.
On 3 May 2013 04:58, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
- Date hack disabled until I can figure out what to do about the
duplicate messages.
They do not bother me, FWIW. Especially as they arrive quickly.
On 29 April 2013 17:11, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
djanatyn (a first-class person who has never been a player before, and
who has authorized me to act on his behalf for approximately the next
six month or until he declares otherwise) registers.
tell him I said to press s
On 29 April 2013 19:25, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
Rules regarding past events and game values pertain to the
actual platonic state of the game in the past, not to an archive
implicitly stored in the gamestate.
I would prefer a less nomic theory, more in universe way of
So how long do we wait for them to get comfortable with us before we
invade again?
On 11 April 2013 18:04, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I don't understand that either. For years it was the most strongly
defended-against thing out there. Now people say, eh, maybe it will
be somehow interesting. I don't get that particularly.
I think dictatorship scams would be
Proto-proto-proposal-sketch the first: Define almost everything
(rules, currency, messages, fora...) as a person and see what goes
boom. Preferably allow them to become players in some way. Replace
Golems with this or something.
Proto-proto-proposal-sketch the second: Give me back Gmail's old
On 10 April 2013 22:55, Wes Contreras w...@antitribu.com wrote:
Intent is irrelevant. The Rules guide play as written, not as intended.
The courts can take intent into account. Agora is a strange place.
I suggest we implement the form that was found in your dream: for
$currency, a player can suspend some part of a rule (for the whole
game or only as it relates to their actions?) for a while. It sounds
more interesting than a communal thing, and lord knows we need some
help getting an economy
I would like to throw in my support for the continued existence of
second-class players. I'd rather have partnerships back, in fact.
On 3 April 2013 03:25, Wes Contreras w...@antitribu.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:20 PM, com...@gmail.com wrote:
E just submitted a proposal, which is one
On 12 March 2013 03:20, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Admitted, it was 11 Mar 13. (Obviously I missed editing that part
before sending it out.)
I just didn't want to consider the cosmological implications of
ratifying that statement.
On 24 January 2013 23:25, woggle woggl...@gmail.com wrote:
Having received no objections, I hereby set the Speed to Slow.
Not so fast!
Hello!
On 5 November 2012 03:43, Max Schutz maxschutz...@gmail.com wrote:
I will vote OMD
You'll have to sent your email to the agora-business list (not
agora-discussion) for that.
On 11 October 2012 21:31, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
d. Per-problem, test cases may have a practical cycle limit or
right-tape limit (to prevent someone claiming hey, it would work if
you let it run 1e15 cycles! when it's pretty clear it's not going
to do what's intended).
On 11 October 2012 14:30, Benjamin Schultz ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com wrote:
How would BF golf differ from BF joust, which you ran some years back?
Golf is implementing a specified program in as few bytes as possible.
For instance, implementing a word-counting program in brainfuck, where
the
On 11 October 2012 09:50, Arkady English arkadyenglish+ag...@gmail.com wrote:
Pardon my ignorance, but what is this? Or is it playing code golf in
an obscure language, because I'm up for that!
http://esolangs.org/wiki/Brainfuck
Relatedly: G., did you know that your Brainfuck Joust evolved into
On 11 October 2012 18:28, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
HA! I'd already copypastad it to a safe location under my control which I'll
use/publish for the official rules :P
But sure, it's http://esolangs.org/w/index.php?title=Brainfuckoldid=32694
To resolve the Implementation
On 27 August 2012 09:32, Sean Christopher Sherwood Hunt
scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
This is a test email; please ignore.
Don't tell me what to do.
CFJ: That was a test email; please ignore.
Arguments:
On 11 July 2012 06:19, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
didn't we just have a CFJ about this? :p
No, since the full-width Latin characters are at least intended to
convey the same information as their normal-width counterparts, rather
than simply visually resembling them.
On 11 July 2012 01:19, Noé Rubinstein noe.rubinst...@gmail.com wrote:
How the hell would this not be trivially TRUE by rule 754/1?
Those are full-width characters; they are certainly not the usual
means we would expect actions to be presented in, but more
importantly, several players may be
On 7 July 2012 05:43, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
CoE: No you do not. The hypothetical is arising out of the case itself.
The inevitable CFJ I hope is judged UNDECIDABLE.
On 6 July 2012 15:00, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
CFJ: It would be ILLEGAL for a player to publish a message whose body
consisted solely of the text I intend, without objection, to ratify
the statement of CFJ 3240..
Oh, sneaky... Very nice.
On 6 July 2012 15:14, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Mind you, nothing prevents Ozymandias (or anyone else) from CFJing on
the same statement - though, if one instance has already been judged
UNDECIDABLE, then further instances might be judged IRRELEVANT, points
out nothing new.
On 5 July 2012 05:19, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
CFJ: omd initiated a CFJ in the above-quoted message.
Arguments: If this is judged TRUE, I will deregister.
On 29 June 2012 14:12, Benjamin Schultz ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm disappointed that there was no action on my request, which could have
helped decide this CFJ.
The commander of the UNDEAD would never betray his people.
On 29 June 2012 20:00, Benjamin Schultz ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, but my question as a non-player is whether you are the commander of the
UNDEAD.
Of course I'm not. As confirmed by G., omd is the new commander of the UNDEAD.
Note that a judgement of UNDECIDABLE will not allow you to win by
paradox, as a turtle's paradox cannot arise from the case itself, per
rule 2358.
Also, TRUE is an incorrect judgement, because you have not won the
game, regardless of what the judgement says. If I CFJ'd I have won
the game in 2012. and it was judged TRUE, that would be an incorrect
judgement; judgements can interpret the rules, but not override them.
On 28 June 2012 17:07, Ozymandias Haynes ozymandias.hay...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think this CFJ alone would constitute a win, but I could
submit a distinct claim of victory and in the case of a TRUE or FALSE
judgment here, cite the CFJ as evidence. No?
It is easy to see that this would not
On 24 June 2012 23:26, FKA441344 441...@gmail.com wrote:
I intend to, With Notice, initiate a criminal case: omd violated Rule
2143 by failing to distribute by the end of Sun. 24 June proposals in
the proposal pool that were in there at the beginning of Mon. 18 June.
Do we really need constant
On 25 June 2012 21:24, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Arguments: In context, I consider here I go a reasonably unambiguous
equivalent of I become a player.
Arguments: In my opinion, this is really stretching our leniency with
registration requests to breaking point, especially since
On 23 June 2012 09:54, Eric Stucky turiski.no...@gmail.com wrote:
As long as you're explaining how things work, I still don't understand
ratification. Could you do some magic on the ruleset and make that make sense
to me?
Ratification is when we take a document and say this is true, and it
On 21 June 2012 20:29, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
I support G.'s move to motion to reconsider CFJ 3214.
I support.
On 21 June 2012 22:21, Henri Bouchard henrib...@gmail.com wrote:
Do I need to know all the rules to play?
Hell, I've been playing for four years and I still don't know *any* of them.
I think this would just result in fewer PRESENT votes and more no-votes.
On 15 June 2012 06:05, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
Pretty sure this would make it ILLEGAL for anyone else to write poetry,
due to R2125(d).
FOR
On 9 June 2012 14:35, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
See: the entire history of B Nomic /ever/. (I'm only half-joking.)
Half? Where's the half-joke?
Since B Nomic spent almost its entire history stuck in the first or
second era (I forget which), and they only realised it after about
On 9 June 2012 06:06, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
So, I just realized the rules never took notice of proposal 6671, adopted on
March 22, 2010 and affecting Rule 1367. This also means that parts of
proposal 6717 were ineffective.
Wait, why doesn't ratification take care of
On 10 June 2012 00:04, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
Because the ruleset does not self-ratify; nor can it be ratified
without objection. It is periodically ratified by proposal.
Good thing we have that safeguard against errant Rulekeepors, or we
might be in trouble!
On 9 June 2012 01:36, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
C'mon, at least specify 14. Otherwise we'll never get up to 50 :)
I taunt the police, specifying 14.
I taunt the police, specifying 14.
I taunt the police, specifying 14.
I taunt the police, specifying 14.
I deregister.
Arguments: I sent this
On 9 June 2012 05:26, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
I sent this message to a-d.
I didn't.
On 4 June 2012 06:20, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I'm not sure where you *ever* picked up that impression.
It's nice to pretend.
On 4 June 2012 06:27, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I think the real reason to just tweak the AI rather than autofailing the
proposal is that less can go wrong.
Add an unpassable switch to a proposal that causes automatic failure
at vote-counting time or something, then. But
On 2 June 2012 17:45, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Lest ehird start routinely using AI = 3141592653.5 just because e can
dammit
On 2 June 2012 21:48, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
You might as well just let the Elders fail a proposal (which seems a bit iffy
to me).
To expand on this: We're meant to be something approximating
democracy. If a majority of players want us to surrender to the
Aerican
They're really boring. Can't we just invade?
On 23 May 2012 13:35, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
It's 2012 and we're still having this argument? Trim quoted material,
interleave replies, and look for a quote-collapse tool. (I only
top-post in work e-mails, where it's ubiquitous and not worth fighting.)
I would wholeheartedly
On 18 May 2012 14:34, Schrodinger's Cat ag...@lesidhetree.com wrote:
How do I register it as a secondary posting account?
Announcing that you also use this email to a public forum (from your
main address) should suffice.
On 10 April 2012 17:44, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
you know who you are
:'(
On 10 April 2012 19:02, Benjamin Schultz ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com wrote:
Gratuitous from a non-current Player: The message seems accurate to
me. IMO the act of registration was intentional and proper, the
decision to register for Agora may prove to be a Bad Idea (tm).
Gratuitous: I suggest
On 9 April 2012 15:50, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
(Alternatively, /sufficiently/ many sockpuppets will be able to beat out
an AI of 8, unless countered by still more sockpuppets.)
See: BlogNomic, October 2011. [1]
[1] http://blognomic.com/archive/cfj_attn_cotc/
On 9 April 2012 16:54, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
That invasion didn't even hit an AI of 1.
Exactly. Such a scam is nearly impossible to pull on any nomic that
has a day or two's warning.
On 9 April 2012 04:46, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
I'm interpreting this as AGAINST (i.e. as an evaluation of the
hypothetical statement this proposal should be adopted). As it's
early in the voting period, omd has plenty of time to clarify if
this is not what e intended.
I
IIRC this was originally part of anti-invasion stuff. I'd be happy to see it go.
On 2 April 2012 17:17, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
You could just say that democratisation requires 2 Agoran Consent or summat.
I'm pretty sure you can't get 2 Agoran Consent for anything.
On 2 April 2012 20:58, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Actually, er, unless I'm missing it, there's currently no way of
making a proposal democratic, unless it's specified as democratic
upon submission. So Agora's fairly safe from Democracy right now.
Yes, but it's probably a bad
The problem with really-unbalanced voting systems is that people tend
to democratise as soon as there's any controversy. It would be nice to
have a way to prevent cheap voting scams in an emergency without
having it be easy enough to do regularly.
On 29 March 2012 15:53, Mister Snuggles mr.snu...@gmail.com wrote:
you have found me.
Hey, there's still three people you could be.
(It's not me.)
On 23 March 2012 17:13, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Trying to define an obvious concept here, does recursion work, can
this be written better?
Looks OK to me, except that your self-ownership thing is borked: your
recursion rules only apply if that /doesn't/, so it will never be
On 23 March 2012 17:58, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see the problem. It seems to me to work correctly.
Oh, silly me; I thought the procedure also defined a golem's owner,
due to the circularity remark, but in fact it doesn't. (Right?) So
this looks fine to me.
On 23 March 2012 21:24, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
there's no way to act-on-behalf of a ruble
Well, then...
On 20 March 2012 16:45, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Missed my favoring obviously. And Agora is going through a dead phase
of utter circlejerk crap. I recuse myself from this case and become
inactive. Thank you.
Sorry to see you go; sorrier still that I caused the last straw.
On 14 March 2012 21:48, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
Lying is not illegal anymore.
Man, stop changing the ruleset behind my back!
Can we just drop all messages sent to the lists from mr.snu...@gmail.com?
(Speaking of which, did anything come of the list hosting thing?)
On 14 March 2012 08:16, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
CFJ: I am Mr. Snuggles.
Arguments: Mr. Snuggles uses GMail. ais523 would never use GMail.
Trivially FALSE.
1 - 100 of 1614 matches
Mail list logo
