DIS: Re: BUS: simplified winning, still complex
On 12 October 2013 03:17, Kerim Aydin 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 reasonable effort of the CFJ system), and therefore it is 0; however, this means that we have determined that eir score is 0 via reasonable effort, and therefore it is probably not 0, for the condition is not met.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Flair
On 8 August 2013 00:29, comex 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, > ｆｕｌｌｗｉｄｔｈ, ├box drawing┤, p⚕ct⚽︎graphs, rtl marks, etc. But 日本語 or a > ≤ b are reasonable. > I don't see why we should care about this in flair but nowhere else. It seems completely irrelevant to me.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Flair
On 7 August 2013 22:57, omd wrote: > (The precise definition of "text" is generally left to the > Registrar's discretion, but should be conservative; no emoji.) Please just allow Unicode strings -- or better, stay silent on the matter. Defining "text" is a fool's errand, and explicitly excluding emoji is both insufficient and pointless.
DIS: Re: BUS: proposal
On 6 August 2013 04:14, omd 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?
Re: DIS: Re: CoE Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7548-7564
On 6 August 2013 02:25, omd 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.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
On 6 August 2013 01:25, Fool 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 even it was you that said it. Oh, please just go away.
Re: DIS: Future of Agora
On 4 August 2013 18:19, omd 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 unambiguous pre-ratification errors that I was more concerned > about. The ways in which things are broken are more interesting than the ways in which they worked out fine, I think.
Re: DIS: Future of Agora
On 4 August 2013 09:43, Kerim Aydin 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) consensus of the gamestate, then I'll go recruit some > Postmodern Literary Critics to play. Just watch me. :P. The intention was for it to be done off the main lists, and of course consensus judgements will be involved at some point -- but I think foresight of major incidents and a likely increase degree of carefulness compared to the early days of the game will make the state somewhat more accurate than what we believe. And it's mostly to pacify my true B player nature; of course it doesn't actually matter.
Re: DIS: Future of Agora
On 4 August 2013 05:01, Craig Daniel 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 emergency procedures to use. As far as I know B's mail archive is more complete than Agora's. Also, of course, B doesn't have 20 years of mail. So I suspect it's even harder for Agora.
Re: DIS: Future of Agora
On 4 August 2013 02:54, 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 it an interesting long-term collaborative project to attempt to reconstruct the current platonic gamestate of Agora from scratch, with the goal of figuring out how to align it with what we've been assuming the gamestate is at the end.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
On 4 August 2013 00:22, Fool 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 against tradition in terms of the limitations of scams (especially dictatorial ones) and the spirit of the game, and stop fighting it.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Emergency Distribution of Proposal 7568
On 2 August 2013 13:46, Benjamin Schultz wrote: > FOR NtttPF (and please vote as "FOR*1" for unambiguity).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Emergency Distribution of Proposal 7568
On 2 August 2013 11:26, Fool 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*
Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians
On 2 August 2013 11:38, Fool 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.
Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians
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.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Election!
On 23 July 2013 15:12, Benjamin Schultz 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 interesting to do trades of an extremely large number of Yaks -- if it is unknown who of two players has more Yaks because of a transfer of a specific amount, would that transfer be rejected as ambiguous (despite unambiguously naming a number of Yaks to transfer)?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: hi oerjan
On 4 July 2013 02:06, Ørjan Johansen 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!
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Power of attorney
On 3 July 2013 22:11, Alex Smith wrote: > I think ehird's suggestion works, though; you could promise "I perform > the specified action with the sha-1 hash ". For > bonus points, you could even transfer it to the Tree, leaving it unclear > who you'd made the promise to. I think encryption where you reveal the private key is better. There are presumably an infinite number of actions with any given SHA-1 hash (or at least we can't rule that out).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Power of attorney
You could probably use encryption to get all of it.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: 13th and final report
On 29 June 2013 13:37, Fool wrote: > Alex Hunt what
Re: DIS: Last minute voting
I also spend as many points as I can to purchase extra votes against 364. And cast those votes.
Re: DIS: Registration
Fancy seeing you here. Hi!
Re: DIS: Agora XX: Proposals 363-364
I vote FOR 363 and do not vote on 364.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: Proposal 344-347
On 26 June 2013 13:03, Fool 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: >> >> Each year on June 30th at 00:04:30 UTC +1200 , the game shall end, >> and the Voter with the most points shall win. In case of a tie, all >> such Voters shall win simultaneously. At this time, no game actions >> may be taken and all timers shall pause. Each year on June 1st at >> 00:00 UTC the game shall resume and each player shall have eir points >> set to 0. At this time game actions may again be taken and all timers >> shall resume. FOR > 345 (Blob): >> >> I propose that a rule be enacted reading: >> >> "If a player proposes a rule change which is not adopted at the end >> of its voting period, that player must immediately forfeit the >> game." FOR > 346 (Blob): >> >> I propose that a rule be enacted reading: >> >> "Any player who proposes to amend, renumber or repeal rule 311 is >> deemed to have forfeited the game." AGAINST > 347 (Chuck): >> >> I propose that Rule 302, or a Rule formerly having had the number >> 302 (if there is exactly one such rule) be amended to read “Players >> whose proposals are adopted shall receive 10 points.” FOR
Re: DIS: Agora XX: Providing for a recurring game
It's been a bit too successful if you ask me! Accordingly, I vote FOR all current proposals.
DIS: Agora XX: Proposal
I propose that all rules be transmuted to mutable.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified
On 19 June 2013 20:12, Kerim Aydin 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!
Re: DIS: Agora XX proposals 301-304
On 19 June 2013 01:28, Fool wrote: > Hello all, > > A report in about 11h. Here I'll only number and repeat the proposals made > so far, so that you can vote by just replying to this message. You can vote > privately, as omd reminds you. > > Voting on these four closes in 24h. > > -Dan > > 301 (Chuck): >> I propose that Rule 211 be amended to read: >> >> “Voters who voted against proposals which are adopted receive 2 points >> apiece. Players whose proposals are adopted shall receive a random >> number of points in the range 1-10 inclusive.” I vote for this proposal. > 302 (Walker): >> >> I propose that the Rule initially numbered 211 be amended by replacing >> "a random number of points in the range 1-10 inclusive" with "10 points". >> I vote for this proposal. > 303 (Chuck): >> I propose that Rule 110 be transmuted to mutable. I vote for this proposal. > 304 (omd): >> I propose that a rule be enacted to read: >> >> "Upon the enactment of this rule, each player who voted for it shall >> receive 30 points, and each player who voted against shall lose the 10 >> points they gained for voting against; then this rule is immediately >> repealed." I vote for this proposal.
DIS: A, B, C, D
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.
DIS: Re: BUS: May as well try to settle this, I think
On 11 June 2013 20:13, Tanner Swett 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 both true and false. This view doesn't seem to be > actually held by anyone in Agora, but if it were Agora's preferred > interpretation, then the statement "It is LEGAL to shout 'CREAMPUFF' > if and only if it is ILLEGAL to shout 'CREAMPUFF'" would be both true > and false, and so under this view, the answer to the CFJ is FALSE. I hold this view, but recognise that Agoran tradition is to collectively lie to ourselves in order to not admit you've broken the game. I miss B.
DIS: Re: BUS: Not sure if this will go anywhere at all
On 31 May 2013 18:08, Kerim Aydin 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!
DIS: Re: BUS: Naughtiness (part 1)
On 29 May 2013 17:47, John Smith 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.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: All of the attempts to cash a promise in this message fail.
On 20 May 2013 22:32, omd 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.
Re: DIS: Entity
On 6 May 2013 03:35, Henri Bouchard wrote: > What is an entity? Yes.
DIS: Re: trivial progress
On 3 May 2013 04:58, omd 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.
DIS: Re: OFF: Lists have been transferred (but are still Foreign)
On 2 May 2013 18:03, omd 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. http://www.jwz.org/doc/mailman.html), and I'm pretty sure there are mailing list managers that don't use any password at all. It seems mailman has won though... > Do you want me to turn off the monthly reminder? Nah, if the passwords have to exist in the first place then mailman mailing list memberships reminder day is traditional. Mostly I just like complaining...
Re: DIS: OFF: Lists have been transferred (but are still Foreign)
On 2 May 2013 17:58, omd 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 about my autogenerated password that has no reason to exist every month. :(
Re: DIS: OFF: Lists have been transferred (but are still Foreign)
On 2 May 2013 18:18, omd wrote: > Not everyone has Gmail's spam filtering! Surely even mailman can weakly obfuscate addresses in the archives.
Re: DIS: OFF: Lists have been transferred (but are still Foreign)
On 2 May 2013 05:50, omd wrote: > Among other possible changes, I'd like to make a nice URL that leads > to the list archive with only HTTP authentication rather than > mailman's cookie crap, for easier wgetting, and put the website on > GitHub to preserve history. I don't see why the archives need authentication at all.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Clear the books
On 29 April 2013 19:25, omd 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 phrasing this if possible.
DIS: Re: BUS: Meet Agora's newest first-class player
On 29 April 2013 17:11, Tanner Swett 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
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Ambassador-at-Large] News from Foreign Nations
So how long do we wait for them to get comfortable with us before we invade again?
DIS: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7364–7395
On 11 April 2013 18:04, Kerim Aydin 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 more interesting even for the scamsters if people actually fought them, rather than just getting to mess around with the game for a bit.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: Adoption of Proposals
On 11 April 2013 00:01, Sean Hunt wrote: > No more strange than a modern Westminster democracy with a separate > Supreme Court. As I said, Agora is a strange place.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: Adoption of Proposals
On 10 April 2013 22:55, Wes Contreras 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.
DIS: Two proto-proto-proposal-sketches
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 compose UI, my neck hurts looking at the bottom-right of the screen and I keep almost accidentally top-posting.
DIS: Re: DIS: Dreams about nomic…
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 going.
Re: DIS: Second-Class Players
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 wrote: > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:20 PM, wrote: >> >> E just submitted a proposal, which is one such action; there are others. > > It would be trivial to enable Golems to submit Proposals. > > It is somewhat less trivial to penetrate the vague hand-waving of > "there are others" to identify what other actions, if any, ought be > addressed to simplify matters. > > > --Wes
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
On 12 March 2013 03:20, Ed Murphy 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.
DIS: Re: BUS: It tolls for B
On 25 February 2013 19:10, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I intend, with Agoran Consent, to flip the Recognition of > B Nomic to Abandoned. Having recently come out of a slump, B is just now getting moving again. It has always and will always have recently come out of a slump. It will always be just now getting moving again.
DIS: Re: BUS: Whoa
On 24 January 2013 23:25, woggle wrote: > Having received no objections, I hereby set the Speed to Slow. Not so fast!
DIS: Re: BUS: Lots of stuff
Hello!
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: BAK: [Nobody In Particular] Distributor Election
On 5 November 2012 03:43, Max Schutz wrote: > I will vote OMD You'll have to sent your email to the agora-business list (not agora-discussion) for that.
Re: DIS: well? and just to get going
On 11 October 2012 21:31, Kerim Aydin 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). Since you can write a program that spins forever while only using a bounded amount of tape, either only having a cycle limit or having both a cycle and tape limit seems desirable. (Of course, if you have a cycle limit, then that constitutes a tape limit too, since the furthest you can reach is wherever the program '>'^(cycle limit) ends up.)
Re: DIS: well? and just to get going
On 11 October 2012 18:28, Kerim Aydin 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=Brainfuck&oldid=32694 To resolve the "Implementation issues" section of that page, I suggest 8-bit tape cell values that wrap on both under- and overflow, a right- (but not left-) infinite tape (or finite but of no fewer than 3 cells, if you wish to exclude entries that theoretically work but don't run on any practical machine), setting the current tape cell to 0 on EOF, and specifying the newline value as 10 in both input and output. These are basically arbitrary, but the most common (and best for golfing) variant of brainfuck (possibly modulo EOF, which is a controversial issue, but 0 is best for golfing anyway, since a 0 value terminates a loop).
Re: DIS: well? and just to get going
On 11 October 2012 14:30, Benjamin Schultz 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 winner is the shortest program.
Re: DIS: well? and just to get going
On 11 October 2012 09:50, Arkady English 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 a game which is still played today (albeit intermittently; its activity seems to come and go in waves). See http://esolangs.org/wiki/BF_Joust and http://esolangs.org/wiki/BF_Joust_strategies for more information.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3270 assigned to scshunt
On 27 September 2012 05:13, Sean Hunt wrote: > However, by sheer coincidence, Rule 2364 allowed omd to double eir voting > limit---that is, increase it by 2---on the proposal in question for a single > fee. I believe the general precedent is that if a player announces an > incorrect cost, they pay the announced cost if it is sufficient to cover the > action. As such, TRUE. I dislike this introduction of a way to destroy assets not specified by the rules.
Re: DIS: Test
On 27 August 2012 09:32, Sean Christopher Sherwood Hunt wrote: > This is a test email; please ignore. Don't tell me what to do. CFJ: That was a test email; please ignore.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fwd: OFF: [IADoP] Promotor Election
Arguments: On 11 July 2012 06:19, omd 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.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fwd: OFF: [IADoP] Promotor Election
On 11 July 2012 01:19, Noé Rubinstein 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 unable to view the text correctly, due to lack of font support.
DIS: Re: BUS: Declaration of Victory
On 7 July 2012 05:43, Sean Hunt wrote: > CoE: No you do not. The hypothetical is arising out of the case itself. The inevitable CFJ I hope is judged UNDECIDABLE.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement and CFJ
On 6 July 2012 15:14, Ed Murphy 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". Wait, we got rid of the thing where only one person could win from the same turtle? Silly.
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement and CFJ
On 6 July 2012 15:00, Ed Murphy 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.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pass
On 5 July 2012 05:19, Ed Murphy wrote: > CFJ: omd initiated a CFJ in the above-quoted message. Arguments: If this is judged TRUE, I will deregister.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3234 assigned to omd
On 29 June 2012 20:00, Benjamin Schultz 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.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3234 assigned to omd
On 29 June 2012 14:12, Benjamin Schultz 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.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: new player registration and a cfj
On 28 June 2012 17:07, Ozymandias Haynes 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 work by removing the (inconsequential) self-reference from the picture: CFJ on "I have won.", get it judged TRUE, and claim victory based on that CFJ. That wouldn't make the judgement correct -- there is no rules or custom-based argument for you having won. So the judgement would be appealed. And by the way, welcome to Agora!
DIS: Re: BUS: new player registration and a cfj
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.
DIS: Re: BUS: new player registration and a cfj
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.
DIS: Re: BUS: hello world
On 25 June 2012 21:24, Ed Murphy 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 its author was clearly aiming for ambiguity.
DIS: Re: BUS: Let's get things moving
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 criminal cases about slightly late reports when the game is moving as slowly as it is?
Re: DIS: Ruleset
On 23 June 2012 09:54, Eric Stucky 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 becomes true, regardless of what the actual truth was beforehand. So we can make sure the ruleset is a certain thing, or the list of players is a certain thing, or the proposal pool is a certain thing, by ratifying it. This lets us eliminate ambiguity when there's some kind of problem. A lot of reports are ratified automatically on a regular basis, if nobody challenges them (e.g. with a CoE).
Re: DIS: Ruleset
On 21 June 2012 22:21, Henri Bouchard 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.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3214 assigned to scshunt
On 21 June 2012 20:29, Tanner Swett wrote: > I support G.'s move to motion to reconsider CFJ 3214. I support.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
I think this would just result in fewer PRESENT votes and more no-votes.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Art
On 15 June 2012 06:05, Pavitra wrote: > Pretty sure this would make it ILLEGAL for anyone else to write poetry, > due to R2125(d). FOR
Re: DIS: Missing Proposal
On 10 June 2012 00:04, Sean Hunt 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!
Re: DIS: Missing Proposal
On 9 June 2012 06:06, Aaron Goldfein 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 this?
Re: DIS: Missing Proposal
On 9 June 2012 14:35, Ed Murphy 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 five more of them, I'd say it meets Yally's criterion perfectly :)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Scam incoming, taking cover
On 9 June 2012 05:26, Pavitra wrote: > I sent this message to a-d. I didn't.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Scam incoming, taking cover
On 9 June 2012 01:36, omd 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 message to a-d.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nomical Security Proposals
On 4 June 2012 06:27, ais523 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 personally, I'd prefer it if an AI of Elders could override the decision of eight.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nomical Security Proposals
On 4 June 2012 06:20, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I'm not sure where you *ever* picked up that impression. It's nice to pretend.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nomical Security Proposals
On 2 June 2012 21:48, Elliott Hird 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 Empire, then a few elders shouldn't be able to stop that. I would suggest instead that Elders be able to declare proposals unvotable-on by new players (for some measure of "new"), to counter-act people joining solely to invade. The time of safety that this allows can be used to pass a proposal to kick them all out.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nomical Security Proposals
On 2 June 2012 17:45, Ed Murphy wrote: > Lest ehird start routinely using AI = 3141592653.5 just because e can dammit
DIS: Re: BUS: Nomical Security Proposals
On 2 June 2012 16:38, FKA441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote: > They may already have seen > this and begun to prepare a pre-emptive strike. This proposal should > therefore be adopted as a matter of urgency. Yawn. I've said the same thing before, and was basically joking. The anti-invasion stuff seems a bit paranoiac to me; I highly doubt the Aerican Empire would waste their time with invading a game a few people play just because someone off-handedly suggested going to war with them on a discussion forum. Anyway, AGAINST because 99.9 is ugly. You might as well just let the Elders fail a proposal (which seems a bit iffy to me).
Re: DIS: Aerica
They're really boring. Can't we just invade?
DIS: Re: BUS: (Please vote!)
I'd probably vote if I got rubles from it. Maybe.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 7207 - 7217
Maybe fewer proposals would fail quorum if we were paid to vote on them.
Re: DIS: Conversation Test
On 23 May 2012 13:35, Ed Murphy 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 second this email, but unfortunately you sent it as HTML.
Re: DIS: Secondary email addresses (like this one)
On 18 May 2012 14:34, Schrodinger's Cat 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.
DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Election Results
On 13 May 2012 18:39, FKA441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote: > Votes Assessor > # > > Totals Assessor > These column headings are confusing. May I suggest "Voter"/"Candidate" and "Candidate"/"Votes"?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: My mistake
On 10 April 2012 19:02, Benjamin Schultz 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 a penalty of EXILE/10 years, to affirm that the registration (a) worked, and (b) was a mistake. What do you mean it's not a criminal case?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On 10 April 2012 17:44, Ed Murphy wrote: > you know who you are :'(
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Let newcomers vote on proposals
On 9 April 2012 16:54, ais523 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.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Let newcomers vote on proposals
On 9 April 2012 15:50, ais523 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/
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Let newcomers vote on proposals
IIRC this was originally part of anti-invasion stuff. I'd be happy to see it go.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 7201-7206
On 9 April 2012 04:46, Ed Murphy 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 typo'd my first FOR vote as TRUE on first writing, too. Something's in the water...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
On 2 April 2012 20:58, Kerim Aydin 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 idea to add in voting shenanigans without a safeguard. Then again, don't we already have a super-duper-emergency procedure if things get really bad? That Gerontocracy thing.
