Re: Fwd: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: is this too morbid?
How about a version that says "a player can't cease being a person while
they are a player"? Then we could respectfully deregister someone if the
worst happens and not worry too much about 'forever'.
-G.
That would solve most recordkeeping problems, but it would still mean
Tailor and Referee reports could be incorrect without our knowledge.
Hmm - Fugitive blots decay, and ribbons are probably easy to reconstruct
(slow moving). Not perfect but also doesn't propagate errors like
registration, etc.?
We could try defining personhood by saying any entity meeting the
conditions becomes a person if e wasn't already, and not adding any
conditions under which an entity stops being a person, thus avoiding the
word "forever", but that would be kind of weird.
Maybe we should go with our suggested text.
I don't mind too much if "forever" is truly the cleanest way, that won't
kill my vote this time.
-G.
Another way to avoid "forever":
{
Amend Rule 896 by inserting the following sentence after the first:
Anyone who was a person in the past, according to the definition in
the previous sentence, is still a person now.
after the first sentence.
}
I'm assuming your objection to "forever" is that then the rule might be
claiming that anyone who's a person now stays a person forever even if
we amend the definition of person later to be more restrictive. Is that
right? I think this version avoids that (but is more wordy).
--
Falsifian
Re: Fwd: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: is this too morbid?
On 7/3/2020 1:33 PM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote: > On 2020-07-03 7:56 p.m., Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 7/3/2020 12:24 PM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote: >>> Maybe worth also mentioning: back in February I tried to patch over >>> this problem with Proposal 8328, The Eternal Sprit [sic... didn't >>> notice the typo until now] >>> >>> Proposal text was 'Amend Rule 869 by replacing the text "is a person" >>> with "is forever a person".' Final F/A was 21/12 for AI 3.0. >> >> Looks like my vote against wasn't strongly against and I was just vaguely >> nervous about the word "forever": >> >> I wrote: 8328* Falsifian3.0 The Eternal Sprit >>> AGAINST. I dislike this sort of asserting-of-permanence for reasons I >>> can't quite put my finger on. >> >> How about a version that says "a player can't cease being a person while >> they are a player"? Then we could respectfully deregister someone if the >> worst happens and not worry too much about 'forever'. >> >> -G. > > That would solve most recordkeeping problems, but it would still mean > Tailor and Referee reports could be incorrect without our knowledge. Hmm - Fugitive blots decay, and ribbons are probably easy to reconstruct (slow moving). Not perfect but also doesn't propagate errors like registration, etc.? > We could try defining personhood by saying any entity meeting the > conditions becomes a person if e wasn't already, and not adding any > conditions under which an entity stops being a person, thus avoiding the > word "forever", but that would be kind of weird. > > Maybe we should go with our suggested text. > I don't mind too much if "forever" is truly the cleanest way, that won't kill my vote this time. -G.
Re: Fwd: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: is this too morbid?
Maybe we should go with our suggested text. *your -- Falsifian
Re: Fwd: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: is this too morbid?
On 2020-07-03 7:56 p.m., Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: On 7/3/2020 12:24 PM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote: Maybe worth also mentioning: back in February I tried to patch over this problem with Proposal 8328, The Eternal Sprit [sic... didn't notice the typo until now] Proposal text was 'Amend Rule 869 by replacing the text "is a person" with "is forever a person".' Final F/A was 21/12 for AI 3.0. Looks like my vote against wasn't strongly against and I was just vaguely nervous about the word "forever": I wrote: 8328* Falsifian3.0 The Eternal Sprit AGAINST. I dislike this sort of asserting-of-permanence for reasons I can't quite put my finger on. How about a version that says "a player can't cease being a person while they are a player"? Then we could respectfully deregister someone if the worst happens and not worry too much about 'forever'. -G. That would solve most recordkeeping problems, but it would still mean Tailor and Referee reports could be incorrect without our knowledge. We could try defining personhood by saying any entity meeting the conditions becomes a person if e wasn't already, and not adding any conditions under which an entity stops being a person, thus avoiding the word "forever", but that would be kind of weird. Maybe we should go with our suggested text. -- Falsifian
Re: Fwd: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: is this too morbid?
On 7/3/2020 12:24 PM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote: > Maybe worth also mentioning: back in February I tried to patch over > this problem with Proposal 8328, The Eternal Sprit [sic... didn't > notice the typo until now] > > Proposal text was 'Amend Rule 869 by replacing the text "is a person" > with "is forever a person".' Final F/A was 21/12 for AI 3.0. Looks like my vote against wasn't strongly against and I was just vaguely nervous about the word "forever": I wrote: > > 8328* Falsifian3.0 The Eternal Sprit > AGAINST. I dislike this sort of asserting-of-permanence for reasons I > can't quite put my finger on. How about a version that says "a player can't cease being a person while they are a player"? Then we could respectfully deregister someone if the worst happens and not worry too much about 'forever'. -G.
Fwd: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: is this too morbid?
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 19:42, James Cook wrote: On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 12:00 PM ATMunn via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: I feel like I vaguely recall this being discussed at some point previously, but I thought I would go for it anyways. I initiate a Call for Judgement on the following statement: "If a player dies unbeknownst to all persons involved in Agora, e is still a person." Rule 869 states that Any organism that is generally capable of freely originating and communicating independent thoughts and ideas is a person. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, no other entities are persons. If someone dies, e is no longer capable of freely originating and communicating independent thoughts and ideas; therefore, e is not a person. FALSE. ...but if nobody knows that e died, then e has to still be a person. We can't assume without proof that anyone is dead and declare em not a person. So PARADOXICAL? Maybe? -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :) On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 02:05, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3411 Past discussions: It came up in the discussion thread "The Very Worst Thing That Could Possibly Happen (Attn. Distributor)" in Jan-Feb. Maye start at https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2020-January/056441.html From that thread, this Oct 2018 thread "What if a player dies?" was linked, with the comment that discussion petered out with no conclusion: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg45140.html - Falsifian Maybe worth also mentioning: back in February I tried to patch over this problem with Proposal 8328, The Eternal Sprit [sic... didn't notice the typo until now] Proposal text was 'Amend Rule 869 by replacing the text "is a person" with "is forever a person".' Final F/A was 21/12 for AI 3.0. -- Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: is this too morbid?
> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 12:00 PM ATMunn via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > I feel like I vaguely recall this being discussed at some point > > previously, but I thought I would go for it anyways. > > > > I initiate a Call for Judgement on the following statement: "If a player > > dies unbeknownst to all persons involved in Agora, e is still a person." > > > > Rule 869 states that > >Any organism that is generally capable of freely originating and > >communicating independent thoughts and ideas is a person. Rules to > >the contrary notwithstanding, no other entities are persons. > > > > If someone dies, e is no longer capable of freely originating and > > communicating independent thoughts and ideas; therefore, e is not a > > person. FALSE. > > > > ...but if nobody knows that e died, then e has to still be a person. We > > can't assume without proof that anyone is dead and declare em not a > > person. So PARADOXICAL? Maybe? > > > > -- > > ATMunn > > friendly neighborhood notary here :) On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 02:05, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3411 Past discussions: It came up in the discussion thread "The Very Worst Thing That Could Possibly Happen (Attn. Distributor)" in Jan-Feb. Maye start at https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2020-January/056441.html >From that thread, this Oct 2018 thread "What if a player dies?" was linked, with the comment that discussion petered out with no conclusion: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg45140.html - Falsifian
DIS: Re: BUS: is this too morbid?
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3411 On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 12:00 PM ATMunn via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I feel like I vaguely recall this being discussed at some point > previously, but I thought I would go for it anyways. > > I initiate a Call for Judgement on the following statement: "If a player > dies unbeknownst to all persons involved in Agora, e is still a person." > > Rule 869 states that >Any organism that is generally capable of freely originating and >communicating independent thoughts and ideas is a person. Rules to >the contrary notwithstanding, no other entities are persons. > > If someone dies, e is no longer capable of freely originating and > communicating independent thoughts and ideas; therefore, e is not a > person. FALSE. > > ...but if nobody knows that e died, then e has to still be a person. We > can't assume without proof that anyone is dead and declare em not a > person. So PARADOXICAL? Maybe? > > -- > ATMunn > friendly neighborhood notary here :) > -- >From R. Lee
