On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote:
> Finally, any method that achieves dictatorships via locking players out
> from gameplay for a week or more is typically frowned upon (there are
> definitely cases where I and coconspirators could have done this, but
> chose not to; being hated by the rest
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
> On 29/07/2013 6:15 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > (there are
> > definitely cases where I and coconspirators could have done this, but
> > chose not to; being hated by the rest of Agora is generally not worth a
> > dictatorship).
>
> I don't understand this bit anyw
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 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.)
No, you are in the category of "annoying, but with honor." :p
On 30 July 2013 04:05, omd wrote:
> The following proposals have been left behind this week:
>
> AI PF C D AUTHOR TITLE
>
> 7565 2 25 O 1 Walker Civil service reform
> 7566 1 20 O 1 Walker because nobody cares
In a given Agoran week, the Promotor SHALL, as part of eir
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, woggle wrote:
> I note that Fool's alleged scam makes the CFJ system in the rules essentially
> unusable for resolving it.
Your solution doesn't in itself work. This situation leaves us without an
in-game way for both sides to mutually agree on a method of arbitration.
It'
On 29/07/2013 11:35 PM, omd wrote:
Per a discussion on IRC, the fact that the rules /use/ the truth value
of a particular statement for some unrelated purpose shouldn't
actually affect anything.
Agreed, shouldn't! But it seems that it does.
Consider the statement "Iff this statement is true
On 29/07/2013 11:30 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Fool wrote:
The sentences in question are not directly self-referential or even
mutually-referential. This is more of a Curry-flavoured confused deputy,
with rule 2337 as the deputy. It says that the author can destroy a
On 29/07/2013 10:43 PM, omd wrote:
Amend Rule 217 (Interpreting the Rules) by appending:
In general, the gamestate only changes as explicitly envisioned
by the Rules, and an absurdity that can be concluded from the
assumption that a statement is false does not constitute pr
On 30/07/2013 3:19 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Elliott Hird wrote:
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.)
No, you are in the category of "annoying, but with hon
On 30/07/2013 3:16 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
On 29/07/2013 6:15 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
(there are
definitely cases where I and coconspirators could have done this, but
chose not to; being hated by the rest of Agora is generally not worth a
dictatorship).
I don't
On Tue, 30 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
> On 30/07/2013 3:19 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Elliott Hird wrote:
> > > 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 Tue, 30 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
> On 30/07/2013 3:16 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
> > > On 29/07/2013 6:15 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > > > (there are
> > > > definitely cases where I and coconspirators could have done this, but
> > > > chose not to; being hated
On 30 July 2013 15:43, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
>> On 30/07/2013 3:19 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Elliott Hird wrote:
>> > > This whole thing strikes me as being in incredibly poor form and I
>> > > disapprove of it.
>> > >
>> > > (People who were
On Tue, 2013-07-30 at 07:18 -0400, Fool wrote:
> Anyways, you can't leave. Pretty sure I explained that right off the bat...
Whether someone is a player or not is different from whether they're
attempting to participate or not. (Bucky should be pretty good evidence
of this, for instance.) This is
On Tue, 2013-07-30 at 16:23 +0100, Charles Walker wrote:
> What, dare I ask, did ehird do?
Most commonly (in terms of annoying but not dishonourable behaviour),
intentionally violate rules.
E was (and presumably still is) quite strongly against scams that
involved deregistering players, though.
Does fool's announcement of intent to destroy a promise:
a) destroy the promise
b) begin the destruction of the promise
c) schedule the destruction of the promise
d) place a time-limit on the action of destroying the promise
e) only announce intent
I'm approaching from "order of operations".
- a
On 2013-07-30, Fool wrote:
> Anyways, you can't leave. Pretty sure I explained that right off the bat...
It's easy to leave. Staying away is another matter.
--
Michael Slone
On Jul 30, 2013 6:35 AM, "Fool" wrote:
>
> On 29/07/2013 11:30 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Fool wrote:
>>>
>>> The sentences in question are not directly self-referential or even
>>> mutually-referential. This is more of a Curry-flavoured confused deputy,
>>> with
On 2013-07-30, Matt Berlin wrote:
> Does fool's announcement of intent to destroy a promise:
>
> a) destroy the promise
> b) begin the destruction of the promise
> c) schedule the destruction of the promise
> d) place a time-limit on the action of destroying the promise
> e) only announce intent
>
On Tue, 30 Jul 2013, Michael Slone wrote:
I think I'm missing something in the rules, though. Actions
performed with notice require Agoran Satisfaction (1728(c)).
Rule 2124, which defines Agoran Satisfaction, appears to require
the action to fall into one or more of the following categories:
wi
On 2013-07-31, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> It does not say it has to fall into any category, it says that for
> each category it _does_ fall into, the corresponding requirement
> must hold. If it doesn't fall into any, then there is no
> requirement needed.
Ack, thanks. For some reason the "and" bef
21 matches
Mail list logo
