Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Stuff
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote: On Thu, 1 Aug 2013, Charles Walker wrote: Davy I may, however, struggle with the requirement to be generally capable of communicating via email. I dunno, I hear cats are quite proficient at using keyboards. Greetings, Ørjan. I think you mean sleeping on keyboards. -- OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Stuff
On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Benjamin Schultz wrote: On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote: I dunno, I hear cats are quite proficient at using keyboards. Greetings, Ørjan. I think you mean sleeping on keyboards. I fail to see how sleeping on is not using. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: Stuff
On 31 Jul 2013, at 22:25, Jonathan Rouillard jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 12:49 -0700, John Smith wrote: Fails because you aren't authorized to act on behalf of Davy 1. Saying 'Person X told me to act on their behalf' isn't considered sufficient around here. I also have a strong suspicion that Davy I is not a person, and thus generally incapable of acting. -- ais523 Pretty sure it's a cat, really. Preeetty sure. =P ~ Roujo The rules do not require first-class persons to be human. Davy I may, however, struggle with the requirement to be generally capable of communicating via email.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Stuff
On Thu, 1 Aug 2013, Charles Walker wrote: Davy I may, however, struggle with the requirement to be generally capable of communicating via email. I dunno, I hear cats are quite proficient at using keyboards. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Stuff
On 31/07/2013 7:59 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Thu, 1 Aug 2013, Charles Walker wrote: Davy I may, however, struggle with the requirement to be generally capable of communicating via email. I dunno, I hear cats are quite proficient at using keyboards. And it's impressive how badly a lot of software reacts to cat typing. (E.g. 6 j's overflows something)
DIS: Re: BUS: Stuff
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote: In the name of Davy I, Queen of Agora Nomic, CAT 24, and her other realms, I cause the new rule created by proposal 7537 to amend itself to read: Hmm... it is interesting how Rule 101 (iv) might be interpreted in view of there only being one player. Even if only one player need review a particular rule change, it is still required to go through a reasonably public process.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Stuff
On 29/07/2013 5:48 PM, omd wrote: On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Foolfool1...@gmail.com wrote: In the name of Davy I, Queen of Agora Nomic, CAT 24, and her other realms, I cause the new rule created by proposal 7537 to amend itself to read: Hmm... it is interesting how Rule 101 (iv) might be interpreted in view of there only being one player. Even if only one player need review a particular rule change, it is still required to go through a reasonably public process. How rule 101 might HAVE been interpreted, past tense. Your proposal passed. Hey, wasn't my idea...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Stuff
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote: How rule 101 might HAVE been interpreted, past tense. Your proposal passed. Hey, wasn't my idea... Good point.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: stuff
Wasn't that Lindrum's justification in Nomic World for why e didn't require proposals to change rules? Since a rule saying Only proposals can change rules had the word Initially?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: stuff
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Sgeo wrote: Wasn't that Lindrum's justification in Nomic World for why e didn't require proposals to change rules? Since a rule saying Only proposals can change rules had the word Initially? E made many bad (read: illegal) interpretations. Another was defining reasonable time for response as 3 minutes. The reason it all worked is that the rules made emself, as the judge, the final arbiter of eir own interpretations, with no possible appeal. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: stuff
On 17 Nov 2008, at 15:09, Kerim Aydin wrote: E made many bad (read: illegal) interpretations. Another was defining reasonable time for response as 3 minutes. The reason it all worked is that the rules made emself, as the judge, the final arbiter of eir own interpretations, with no possible appeal. -G. I thought you judged it didn't work? Anyway, iirc CFJs had no legal binding back then, so it didn't actually work. I may be misremembering.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: stuff
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: On 17 Nov 2008, at 15:09, Kerim Aydin wrote: E made many bad (read: illegal) interpretations. Another was defining reasonable time for response as 3 minutes. The reason it all worked is that the rules made emself, as the judge, the final arbiter of eir own interpretations, with no possible appeal. -G. I thought you judged it didn't work? Anyway, iirc CFJs had no legal binding back then, so it didn't actually work. I may be misremembering. It will never be resolved. It actually split the gamestate, though we didn't call it that back then. Judgements did in fact determine the truth I believe (can't remember the terminology). The judgement itself resulted in the following two sets of opinions: Axiom 1: Lindrum delivered a legal judgement making em dictator. Axiom 2: Lindrum's judgement was illegal, thus ineffective. The problem is, if you start out within either axiom, you can deliver an entirely internally-self-consistent judgement, and the completely self-referential nature of judgement at the time meant there was no way of legally deciding between the two. Since players in the game were fairly evenly split between camps and tried roundly to persuade the other side with their own ironclad logic, there was no way to resolve it. (There was a third camp a couple of us ended up in, Lindrum was illegal but ratified eir illegality, a coup which we really dislike but have to allow). The only way to resolve that was to make a meta-game agreement to work within each system to have the two gamestates converge into a new Ruleset. The internal legal mechanisms that led to that new Ruleset will never be resolved between camps. Note that this is unresolvable on many levels in any nomic, even Agora. If half of the players in Agora suddenly start playing the game as if 1=5 or using some other counterfactual position, and maintaining records as if some not-agreed to truth were true, then the game would splinter similarly (you could for example keep a complete set of records as if every scam proposed actually worked). Basically when the meta-agreement breaks that we're all playing Agora and work to keep doing so, then that's that. [Note: The above interpretation was only loosely agreed to long after the fact, in 2001 when Lindrum and Evantine, champions of opposing camps, joined Agora briefly, and Steve, Blob and myself (sorta mediators back then) were all here too, and had a general discussion with hindsight along with the benefit of Agoran insight, participation, and terminology]. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: stuff
ehird wrote: 2008/11/17 Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Aha. I initiate an inquiry case on the following statement, disqualifying comex: Neither Proposal 5956 nor Proposal 5962 has been adopted. Arguments: Strong precedent is that one-off increases work. What strong precedent? I don't remember that clause being invoked even once (until now) since it was enacted.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: stuff
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: 2008/11/17 Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Aha. I initiate an inquiry case on the following statement, disqualifying comex: Neither Proposal 5956 nor Proposal 5962 has been adopted. Arguments: Strong precedent is that one-off increases work. What strong precedent? I don't remember that clause being invoked even once (until now) since it was enacted. Well, I'm not aware of any precise precedent when there's a conflict between a continuous defined state and an instantaneous change. R2156 defines voting limit continuously: The voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary decision *is* eir caste at the start of its voting period so any rule that purports to change the voting limit away from this value is in conflict with R2156. R2126 purports to do a one-off shift, and *does* in fact have a higher precedence due to number. So this can be read either as a direct conflict in which case R2126 wins, or, as Murphy argues, this is the instantaneous perturbation and return to defined state (with no conflict). At one time, there was a vague theory that if there's two choices, one that creates a conflict and resolves it by precedence, and another that doesn't create a conflict, that one should choose the lack-of conflict option. But I think that's more judicial preference rather than precedent. There's a considerably stronger argument that basic definitions (e.g. a player's VP is (by definition) eir caste) effectively claims precedence (in the R1030 sense) over non-definitional changes from that definition. This would favor R2156, and not even allow the instantaneous switch which seems a little dubious. I don't remember it being written in those words, but one could probably trawl the CFJs for arguments that effectively say this (that a property can not stray from its definition-- e.g. calling a VP something other than its caste is as nonsensical as setting a numerical index to be a bunch of grapes). -Goethe
