On Sun, 2018-10-07 at 14:45 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I know we used to have a Bill of Rights in Rule 101. It might be neat
> to add that back again. Does anyone (particularly anyone who around
> when we last had it) have any comments on the idea of bringing back
> legal rights?
They were
I was trying to think of some proposal ideas (as, of course, proposals
are the whole point of Agora). A few different ideas went through my
head, and then possibly the coolest/dumbest one came: space.
This is basically a big list of ideas for how space could work, probably
only some of which
One random added idea—what if there was a temporal component to the space
travel, so that you wouldn’t move from place to place instantaneously but
instead might take a few days to traverse the galaxy or whatever? And what
if some Agoran actions could only be taken while you are in certain places?
On 10/7/2018 9:16 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
One random added idea—what if there was a temporal component to the space
travel, so that you wouldn’t move from place to place instantaneously but
instead might take a few days to traverse the galaxy or whatever?
That could be interesting. I think the
On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 2:46 PM Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
> I know we used to have a Bill of Rights in Rule 101. It might be neat
> to add that back again. Does anyone (particularly anyone who around
> when we last had it) have any comments on the idea of bringing back
> legal rights?
For public
This is a pretty good idea.
I intend to declare victory by apathy, with its set of players being just
myself.
On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 11:29 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> I withdraw the earlier version, and submit and pend:
>
> //
> Title: Buried Intent Prevention Act v2
> AI: 3
> Author: D
On Sun, 7 Oct 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I know we used to have a Bill of Rights in Rule 101. It might be neat
> to add that back again. Does anyone (particularly anyone who around
> when we last had it) have any comments on the idea of bringing back
> legal rights?
My "if I ever get around
Here's a minimally patched proto of Alexis's Politics system. I'm
undoubtedly missing something, so any corrections would be
appreciated. Also, I've left two values unspecified, , which is the
number of coins charged for something; and , a player who's
willing to serve as the first Clork.
Yes, I agree. Otherwise we'd have to assume that if you just replied
to yourself in BUS, every action in quotes would be re-done. (And
that's specifically why you need to append a PF rather than just
forwarding from DIS to BUS without comment). I'd define the unclarity
as "unclear
I don't see much immediate benefit in adding this because a lot seems
redundant.
1 - Doesn't Regulated Actions already cover this?
2 - CFJs should cover this.
3 - Shouldn't Contracts cover this?
4 - I think this is new but it could be added I guess, somehow.
5 - I think this is already in the
Yeah, I really just don't want another system where you can own things that
make things and it all culminates in a huge resource war. After land, a
system like that is just ugly.
On Sun, Oct 7, 2018, 18:59 ATMunn wrote:
> I was trying to think of some proposal ideas (as, of course, proposals
>
If I were judge, I'd say it failed according to your third theory.
Nothing marks that this is something that's actually being done in the
present, rather than a use of the historical present tense. The
interests of the game seem to agree with me, which is relevant for
interpretation according to
I know we used to have a Bill of Rights in Rule 101. It might be neat
to add that back again. Does anyone (particularly anyone who around
when we last had it) have any comments on the idea of bringing back
legal rights?
-Aris
This feels largely the same as what we have now already.
I'm not too excited about it. It's not bad though. Just, well, lukewarm.
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 3:51 AM ATMunn wrote:
> On 10/7/2018 9:16 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
> > One random added idea—what if there was a temporal component to the space
G. commented that e moved most of the provisions, rather than deleting
them. All we'd be doing is reconsolidating them.
A few other rights we might add:
- The right to believe anything that isn't demonstrably false
- The right not to be ignored
- The right to have a path to obtain meaningful
Have we ever had an economy where we have multiple interlocking small
mini-games, rather than one very large one? That might be interesting
to try.
My motivation here is that everyone seems to have a different idea. I,
for one, really want to bring back the Politics system. However, that
system
I like the simplicity. One bug report: you say “all the above rules are
repealed” which probably doesn't work if only some of the phrasings (which
I very much like) are successful. You might try something like “for each
entry above that purports to refer to a rule, repeal the rule referred to
by
What would you think of a requirement that an intent to take a dependent
action be announced “conspicuously”? Something like:
//
Amend Rule 1728 to replace,
“1. A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the action,
unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and
I would add "unobfuscated" to really bullet-proof it because that
covers any attempt to hide...?
On Sun, 7 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
> What would you think of a requirement that an intent to take a dependent
> action be announced “conspicuously”? Something like:
>
>
>
> //
>
>
>
Seems reasonable. What about:
//
Title: Buried Intent Prevention Act v2
AI: 3
Author: D Margaux
Coauthors: Aris, G
Amend Rule 1728 to replace,
“1. A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the action,
unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and method(s) (including
the
I’d vote FOR this version.
-Aris
On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 2:12 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> Seems reasonable. What about:
>
> //
> Title: Buried Intent Prevention Act v2
> AI: 3
> Author: D Margaux
> Coauthors: Aris, G
>
> Amend Rule 1728 to replace,
>
> “1. A person (the initiator) announced
My current view is that this is consistent with the newly reiterated CFJ on
clarity.
Under the current text of the Rule, the intended action must be clear and
unambiguous, but there is not any current requirement that the
*announcement of intent* itself be made clearly or conspicuously. The new
22 matches
Mail list logo
