On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 4:44 AM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
No, that wasn't it. Of course there was a game to consider the best interest
of, prior to ending it. What remains to be shown is that it was in the best
interest of the game to continue it indefinitely. People win, games end;
this
On 2/22/14, 1:44 , Fool wrote:
[snip]
It is correct that R1698 had a chance to act before the game ended. So Alex
Smith's proposed amendment would have been effective in preventing the end of
the game. But in absense of that amendment, it remains to be shown that ending
Agora falls under
On Sat, 22 Feb 2014, woggle wrote:
On 2/22/14, 1:44 , Fool wrote:
[snip]
It is correct that R1698 had a chance to act before the game ended. So Alex
Smith's proposed amendment would have been effective in preventing the end
of
the game. But in absense of that amendment, it remains to
On Sat, 22 Feb 2014, Fool wrote:
On the contrary, it used to be explicitly stated winning the game does not
cause Agora to end, and moreover rule 101 used to say Agora since its
inception has functioned not only a game but as a society. Then the ruleset
was radically overhauled.
In the new
On Sat, 22 Feb 2014, Kerim Aydin wrote:
This is, in part, why the original Suberian ruleset made sure to specify that
the worst that could happen to you was leaving the game, because in nomic the
in-game and out-of-game are in a very different place than in traditional
games (didn't Vlad
On Sun, 23 Feb 2014, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
I thought it was Swann (a bit hard to cross reference pseudonyms :P), but
anyhow the book I remember is
http://www.amazon.com/The-Omega-Game-Steven-Krane/dp/0886779073
Oh hm definitely Swann: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Andrew_Swann
(BTW I
On Sun, 23 Feb 2014, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2014, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
I thought it was Swann (a bit hard to cross reference pseudonyms :P), but
anyhow the book I remember is
http://www.amazon.com/The-Omega-Game-Steven-Krane/dp/0886779073
Oh hm definitely Swann:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd guess that platonically, nothing of the sort happened. The players
pragmatically restarted the game.
It is absurd to interpret a clause of the form after a win, X
gamestate is reset in a way that does not platonically establish
On 2014-02-13 12:00 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
I think there's another subsidiary point here, which is how much power
does it take to end the game / series of games, anyway? It feels like
the answer should be 3, but I can't see an immediate reason why it's
On 2014-02-16 9:44 PM, omd wrote:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd guess that platonically, nothing of the sort happened. The players
pragmatically restarted the game.
It is absurd to interpret a clause of the form after a win, X
gamestate is reset in a way
On Sun, 16 Feb 2014, Fool wrote:
Existence would be a necessary condition for ossification...
I just don't understand why ending means ceases to exist in your
book. No game ceases to exist when the game is over.
Even if the game ended, it would be the game of Agora that ended in
February
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Fool wrote:
It has the power to award a win...
There's an alternate interpretation, btw, that no-one has brought
up yet.
1. (Accepting Fool's Premise): Since winning is, by common
definition, part and parcel of ending the game, the two aren't
separable.
2.
On Thu, 2014-02-13 at 07:27 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
There's an alternate interpretation, btw, that no-one has brought
up yet.
1. (Accepting Fool's Premise): Since winning is, by common
definition, part and parcel of ending the game, the two aren't
separable.
2. Therefore, any rule
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
I think there's another subsidiary point here, which is how much power
does it take to end the game / series of games, anyway? It feels like
the answer should be 3, but I can't see an immediate reason why it's
any more than 1.
Well I think it would
14 matches
Mail list logo
