Anyone interested in starting an Agoran region of nation-states?
AGAINST 4866 (it still repeals switches)
Darn it Maud, I told you I'd put it back in if it was a vote-killer
for you, and you didn't say! Could we put it back in right
afterwards rather than re-propose this whole thing?
Just to check rule powers... R1950 is Power 3, and says in part:
The voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary proposal is
one, if not explicitly modified by other rules.
Does this permit a Power 2 rule to modify voting limits on
Is it relevant that rule 1030 only talks about explicit *claims*
of deference, rather than deference itself?
In the context of a body of text (e.g. a rule), what's the
difference between claiming to defer and actually deferring?
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006, Kerim Aydin wrote:
In the context of a body of text (e.g. a rule), what's the
difference between claiming to defer and actually deferring?
Followup question: I would say both of the below phrases
explicitly claim to defer to other rules. So if they
differ from each
Rule 698 (Always an Eligible Judge)
was silent on the eligibility of non-active players before the
adoption of Proposal 4867, and remained silent after its adoption.
Whups! Missed deleting the word active in several places, and
now there's no ruleset definition. CFJs 1500 and
One of Goethe's recent proposals (which was adopted, I believe)
eliminated switches, so flipping is probably undefined.
Sorry, yes, noone answered that, second to last paragraph of the
new 106 defines chamber by its AI so chamber always matches AI:
The default adoption
I don't mind adding switches, but this is badly out of date:
R1840 no longer exists, and there is no longer any such
thing as rebellion.
R1933 likewise, and chamber now a feature of AI.
R1940 likewise (no boons anymore).
R1952 likewise (no concept of distributability)
In fact, the only places
If we rule that:
(a) All players that were active when 4866 was adopted are
active for the purpose of any rule which refers to activity.
(b) All players that were inactive when 4866 was adopted are
considered inactive for any such rule until they next
Sure, but you're not the only person with their name on the
fountain, just the Evil Leader of the Conspiracy.
Well, since all but one of them actively voted on the most recent
proposals, it would only pass if almost all of them agreed to it,
so I wouldn't feel too bad however
I tried to add in the FLR but couldn't get it to look right.
I should have something browsable, sortable (for example by precedence
or by subject), and searchable up in a few days to link to, based on
this from Claustronomic:
Joshua Boehme wrote:
I'm assuming players fall under the definition of Rule-defined entities.
What's interesting is that there are patent titles which still exist under
the rules and are assigned to Chuck, so it's possible e is still defined to
some degree in relation to those.
Forget that. If I were still registered I'll allege that Goethe
had won by paradox.
I don't think it's a paradox. At the moment, I merely made a
statement (judgement) that is invalid, think of it as a proto-
judgement. If a newly-assigned judge agrees, all is consistent
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006, Kerim Aydin wrote:
It is Kelly's turn. Michael is in the lead with 6 thimbles.
ps. This refers to Michael Slone, not Michael Norrish.
Upon the adoption of this proposal, Goethe is deemed to have been
deregistered due to Rule 1789
Ya better hope my vote isn't the deciding one on this... congrats,
Under my reading, Goethe was still a player while CFJ 1594 was
being judged; the WoF wasn't posted until after the judgment was
submitted and published.
I am therefore holding off on awarding a Win By Paradox to Murphy
until this situation is resolved.
I think Murphy's
Goethe's judgment that 1594 was false also is odd, because by
judeing it false, it means e was deregistered upon stated that
e was deregistered, thus he wasn't a player to judge the CFJ.
Actually, by Cantus Cygneus, my initial snit didn't deregister
me, it's the CotC's
Murphy wrote:=0A My interpretation is that X shall perform action Y is e=
quivalent to=0A X is required and allowed to perform Y exactly once, unl=
ess clearly=0A indicated otherwise.=0A=0AHmm, that's a possibility. I sup=
pose my argument would be more appropriate if the rule
The Speaker, Clerk of the Courts, and Promotor are mutually
This sentence plainly designates the position of Speaker as an office,
so by rule 1006, Speaker is an office.
I disagree. Being mutually exclusive offices is either a qualifier
Goethe, can you explain precisely why you believe the Speaker is not an =
office, other than game custom? In the absence of any hard rules stating t=
hat distinction, I think we should stick with R1450, which suggests strongl=
y that the Speaker is an office.
Oh yikes, I
Nice one! Although I'm not sure there's really any utility in calling
a CFJ that can't be assigned, other than to annoy the CotC.
But what about the utility of calling a CFJ with only one eligible
judge (of the caller's choosing)? I agree, nice one, Zefram!
The CotC's posting of the Writ deregisters the Player, and the
instructing the Registrar bit is null. Thus Goethe is not a
That's certainly a reasonable argument, but it's not what created
the paradox. The paradox arose because Murphy assigned the CFJ
to me before
Rule 106 says the eligible voters are the active
players, but I don't see anything that says when that's determined,
so my interpretation is that eligibility should be determined at the
time of voting.
From the last paragraph of R1950:
In a Platonist system this wouldn't be a problem. In the Platonist model,
Judgements don't actually change the state of anything, they're just meant
to point out what the state actually is. A contradiction of Judgements
isn't a problem then: one of the purported Judgements is
Please don't renumber Rules. It screws up the amendment numbers (though
I see they're no longer formally defined).
Things like amendment numbers were explicitly left to game custom
as part of increasing Officers' discretion in their recordkeeping,
but also in anticipation of
It retains the properties it had when it was last defined, no?
Certainly not. Game custom has never supported definitions outliving
their repeal. The meaning of the formerly-defined term reverts to
whatever it would be if the definition had never existed. In this
A voting index of
aleph-null should properly only be used when infinitely many FOR votes
are placed, which I don't believe has ever happened.
I tried once, but according to Kelly I only said I did.
The Town Fountain was created through a scam. You'll have to repeal
it through another scam, if you want my vote.
This is a scam, it repeals a power-4 Rule with an AI 1 proposal.
Works because the Great Repeals deleted a part of 105(c). It's a
scam that needs a majority,
Grey Knight wrote:
I hereby modify the Adoption Index of this proposal to 2 yellow
Uh oh, when did the definition Index = real number disappear from
the Ruleset. Can't pin this one on me, it wasn't there a month
before the Great Repeals (just checked).
Maud, was this part of
One other aspect of Agoran common custom is that this is a legal
game before a logic/mathematical one, and we've used in the past
legal reasonableness to sidestep the more trivial paradoxes.
Especially true in the current, slimmed-down ruleset.
In legal terms, Unanimous means having the
And if all parties to an agreement have consented, it would
substantially abridge the rights of the Players in R101 if we
*didn't* assume prima facie that the change was valid.
Ps. It's possible, following this argument, that if *all*
indices are broken or unordered, then the
This isn't a bug, it's a feature.
What's the advantage?
A wider range of voting tactics. Specifically, if a vote is lackluster
in turnout, you can sink it by not voting, rather than voting AGAINST,
when an AGAINST vote wouldn't be enough to sink it. Turns not voting
What caught my eye was an envelope on
top of a certain pile, the kind of envelope
Kodak gives you your developed photos
in. And on it was written, in black pen,
I *knew* I'd left that somewhere...
Also, two questions for Goethe: if the original paradox was resolved
by appeal, (1) do you think it would work and (2) would it convince
you to re-register?
I think your suggestion is a very reasonable way to deal with it. That
was kinda my intent with calling CFJ 1605, so
Past CFJs do not have the status of Rules. They are meant to guide
play, but they cannot overrule a Rule if they conflict with one.
Rules are nothing without actors who obey them. And the same
actors interpret the judgements and their own authority as judges.
In that sense,
Only difference today is it takes a conspiracy
of several now (pass the proposal, or defend a judgement through
the appeals process).
Side note: the conspiracy was attempted and failed (CFJ 1346).
Bonus: the conspiracy used the word deemed.
If you like, I think my argument is in the best interests of the game:
do you really want an unresolvable CFJ paralysing the system for
evermore? (You might call the same CFJ again I suppose.)
I called CFJ 1606 specifically to fix it. I explained that at the
time. It creates
If I deem Rule 101 to have a different text from what it actually has,
does that affect the game?
You can play as if R101 deemed you Prince of the Moon. It can be
your own game. Whoever joined you would be playing the same game.
You could use the same mailing list. If no one
Zefram is a pineapple.
As a matter of my R101 privilege to do as I wilt, it should be TRUE.
As a matter not pertinent to the rules, it should be DISMISSED.
As an unregulated property of a person (Zefram), it is the
sole discretion of Zefram (CFJ
Such deeming happens in regulated fashion, so everyone else's
unregulated deeming is completely irrelevant.
Oho, that seems like a particularly pernicious semantic slip,
changing the regulation of a noun (e.g. deeming regulated
quantities making up the gamestate to have
As an unregulated property of a person (Zefram), it is the
sole discretion of Zefram (CFJ 1361), and should be FALSE.
But what if e /wants/ to be a pineapple?
There's another argument that might apply to properties of
persons (e.g. being a pineapple). R101(iv)
* *The term /voting index/ is defined by paragraph (c) of Rule 955
as the ratio of the strength of FOR to the strength of AGAINST.
* *Looking to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, /ratio/ is
first defined as the indicated quotient of two mathematical
First, this is a test case and there's many ways my
arguments are probably wrong.
I did not perceive there to be any such agreement. I took actions
purely of my own will.
Counterargument: entering something of your own will is what
an agreement is: e.g. I agree to be legally
First of all Michael, I think we are agreeing on 95% percent of
what we are saying. There's just a couple of subtleties that are
missing in us agreeing completely, and those are subtleties that
aren't involved in the current, actual situations.
When you deem your
nickname to be
For what it's worth, Judge Steve used the word choose to describe
how a nickname is set in eir judgement of CFJ 1361:
I don't see how this can be taken to support your deemonic theory.
I think that for actions over which a player has a choice,
I deem Y to be X and I
Nor is the fact that other rules regulate rule changes relevant,
for 101 trumps them.
What is the difference between changing rules, and changing
I misspoke just now. You are correct. You don't have the right to
do what you wilt. But R101(i) grants you the
I'm not claiming what you think I'm claiming. I'm saying that
you can't change the rules' set of deemings because that specific
set is subject to regulation.
You mean we've been in agreement the whole time? Oh well, shows
what happens when we drift from arguing a specific
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
It's a question of scope of the rules to apply to real world. You say a CFJ
pineappleness should be FALSE (Real world evidence is overwhelming that
pineapples don't send email,
using the common language clause of definitions.) and I say it should
Your binding agreement fails to satisfy the ``business'' requirement
as well as the ``view of profit'' requirement, so it isn't a
Obviously, we haven't shared the confidential aspects of the
partnership's business arrangements.
I can reveal part of it: 2. ???
That is, in part, the idea. Saying Zefram is an avocado -- or
passing a proposal establishing Goethe is a banana -- or
transferring elements of a Rules-defined private property to France
-- does not automatically make it so.
But it might make it so in the interpretation
Upon the adoption of this proposal, each natural person who is part
of a player that is not a natural person is awarded the Patent Title
of Denny Crane.
I object to this being treated as a cheap scam (whose perpetrators
could be bought off with trinkets) rather than as a
Sherlock's judgements in 1616 and 1615 are reasonable. OscarMeyr's
judgement in 1614 is reasonable. Unfortunately, they are in direct
opposition, so there's no clear precedent. Any ideas on whether an
appeals process is useful to resolve this?
Feel free to propose such a change.
You mean, uh, I like things the way they are and I'm supposed
to propose that as a change? Talk about an over-regulating
* Is the Pineapple Partnership a player?
yes - Quazie voted AGAINST, VI = 3/4, voters = 7
no- Quazie voted FOR, VI = 4/3, voters = 7
indeterminate - Quazie did not vote (condition in Rule 2127
paragraph 2 was not met), VI
As long as Murphy is suggesting re-enacting Assessor, ADoP, and
Registrar, I've started thinking about re-enacting Scorekeepor,
points, and winning the game. I'll try to come up with some details
in a few days, particularly how to make it different from the last
(Agoran Contracts, as defined by R2109, are indistinguishable from
rules, except that they are tracked separately from the ruleset. It's a
completely redundant mechanism. The above proposal converts the sole
existing Agoran Contract into a rule and deletes the mechanism.)
rule 104 is hereby repealed.
I wish you the best of luck, sir.
If a subgame automatically involves all players then I reckon that's
not very sub. Subgames in which participation is optional can be
dealt with by contracts, of course.
It's sub in the sense that it's a reasonble modular and separable
part of the game, but integral to
As I noted, that too would result in a clash. The old definition was
the number of times that a rule with that number has been amended.
Repealing a rule and then creating a new one with the same number doesn't
involve any amendment, so the process ends with the same amendment
This did not cause any rule to acquire a number
previously used by a different rule, which is what's going on here.
It suddenly occurs to me that this unique precedent gives us two
entities with the same name and/or nickname by R1586 (self-
reference alert: is a Rule a
It is not clear to me if eligibility in terms of Appeals judges
As soon as possible after an Appellate Judge is recused, the
Clerk of the Courts shall randomly select an eligible Player to
clause (iv) of R911:
iv) E is ineligible to Judge the CFJ
My intent with the motions was to force assignment of judges regardless
of what state the CFJs were in. I'm not at all clear on whether they've
been legally judged.
I understood that intent, and it should work and force a judicial
assignment even after the CotC dismissed the
Here's the current state of my historical rule text work:
Nice, this goes back farther than mine which ends with FLRs
in the current archive. One thing: I've been trying to figure
out a non-tedious way to get Repeal dates in; repeal dates
would be needed to reconstruct an FLR
This is a test to see if my mailer is wrapping text correctly or not. No, THIS
is a test to see if my mailer is wrapping text correctly or not. No, this is.
Or rather, this.
[Do people prefer the full write-ups continue to be sent to a-o?]
Actually Murphy, I was planning on doing my own automated tool
to do the official postings, though not with the intent of
replacing your database as the main repository. Would you be able
to send/share your code,
Pineapple Partnership c/o Zefram26 Feb 2007
By PP charter, both Zefram and I must be consulted on PP actions,
and either of us are authorized to act on behalf of PP under
certain conditions. The charter is silent on how to communicate
with the PP, but I'd guess
The idea is that the CotC may effectively accept an Excess CFJ (by
assigning it within the usual time limit), defer it (by assigning it
beyond the usual time limit), or reject it (by failing to assign it
at all). This could also say The time limit ... is revoked, but
No change to the Ruleset can occur that would cause a Rule to
stipulate any other means of determining precedence between Rules of
equal Power. This applies to changes by the enactment or amendment
of a Rule, or of any other form. This Rule takes precedence over
I suggest that if you want to manage the proposal pool largely
automatically then the automaton should accept submissions via email.
You just need to announce I prefer to receive proposal submissions in
this format: ..., and program the automaton to parse email messages
Please don't, that really sucked. The current less direct system, of
buying voting power which can be exercised on all (Ordinary) proposals,
is vastly better.
I disagree that this sucked, I thought it worked reasonably well and
was very interesting. Maybe it was more
Any labor above basic grunt (and sometimes even that) isn't truly
that's a pretty standard service and you can to a large extent exchange
one accountant for another. But what we do? No. Our offices are not
I mispoke here. I
So, anyway, I don't know. Maybe you did have a playable currency
game. I'd like to see mail logs for it. I maintain that currencies
fundamentally don't work in a nomic.
Wish the logs were available. By then (I was part of the Slashdot
influx) bugs were still there, but the
Could those who were playing at the time comment on the consequences of
the error? Goethe?
What was the date this set of proposals took effect? My card log
scripts should still run and it would be easy to see if any checkouts
occurred illegally within the 24-hour window (there
== The following message is brought to you by the this
== is why we repealed cards sub-committee.
The only cards fitting into that category were drawn from
The Library in error were drawn on 13-Jul-2005 as follows
(all times GMT):
Fate transfers Enforced Charity to The
Create a rule titled The International Associate Director of Personnel
with this text:
Create a rule titled The Assessor with this text:
Certainly, at the very least, we can combine these two into a single
Proto: The Decisor is an Office with the responsibility
4943 | Reward and Punishment | Goethe| 3 | 20Apr07 | D
AGAINST -- punishing recusal is fine, punishing being overturned is not.
No worries, but punishment for being overturned is already in the rule,
not added by me, so you should prefer the new version by your
I've made a prominent section on the Agora page for links to such pages.
Can someone write about the card games of recent years?
Fun! I'll do something about cards, and also the history of the
Town Fountain (involves the reason why the R1482 fix you proposed
might not work as
Are you sure about this? I thought we had had cases before (not
necessarily brought to CFJ) where a rule change was implemented based
on the rule number mentiioned, even though an incorrect title was also
Not entirely sure... it seemed reasonable, but if there's an
I'm not sure if the rules allow me to do this or not. I request to not
judge the above linked CFJs.
I'm happy to turn you again w/o 2 objections so you don't have to judge
this round, and keep turning you until you say you'd like to judge CFJs
again... would you prefer that?
no i should be good for judging, just not that one.
Well, I fulfilled your request :). I'm happy to fulfill such
requests for not doing specific CFJs as long as I'm allowed
(e.g. if you're not the only one eligible).
You are supposed to list at least one such player.
O. In this phrase:
The Clerk of the Courts shall only do
so when all open CFJs without a Trial Judge have no players
eligible to be assigned, and at least one of them has at least
It does seem to be standard practice (although I'm not entirely happy
about that), but this particular exploit clogs up the Stare Decisis
and needlessly cranks up the CFJ number (just as the hundreds of CFJs
from ~1994 did).
Zefram and I did talk about that... I apologize for
Hey, before you go into non-integer powers, what ever happened to power-2?
It seems like everything's either 1 or 3 these days. If we're not even
using the hierarchy we've got, why go further.
I think it's an artifact of the rules slimming last year. Everything
with power over 1 that made the
I am therefore inclined to judge FALSE, as much as I'd rather judge
the other way.
The one thing that I really hope comes of this the beginnings of a
strong jurisprudence on rights. Zefram has put forth some ideas,
I'd like to chime in.
First of all Maud, I agree with you on the
Murphy's message with datestamp Sun, 29 Apr 2007 16:59:19 -0700 had
the effect of submitting a proposal.
I remove Proposal Racket from the pool.
Proposal: Protection Racket
Indeed, when I saw that message, I thought e was just including the
text of the proposal e was removing
You don't have to ask permission. :D
On 4/30/07, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hereby request permission to register under the name BobTHJ.
Welcome! When I joined, requesting was the time-honored
way to actually join. I suggest we honor the reverse and
I argue that replacing all occurrences of something that does not actually
occur is a null action. Hence in that example both parts are possible,
so that's not an example of the situation that I described in the CFJ.
Can you give me an example? I'm having trouble picturing
I could swear that some variation or other of this issue has been
judged in the past, but darned if I can find it.
It was the opposite. The rules required that new players
request registration. I tried to register by announcing
The CFJ was around Feb, 2001.
We're all mad, here.
I issue a judgement of DISMISSED as irrelevant to the rules.
I call for appeal of CFJ 1630. The truth of CFJ 1630 tells us
everything we need to know about the rules.
Thanks, it was CFJ 1266 (and was dismissed because it consisted of
Oh yes, I'd forgotten an idiot newbie did that one.
There's another CFJ right before/after. Look for one called by Blob,
judged by Steve, with the CFJ statement written more concisely
By rule 107 (b), the notice initiating an Agoran decision must give a
``description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to enable
public agreement on which persons are eligible''. Therefore, the
class of eligible voters is set when the decision is initiated and
Now, I know we've been following a judicial path lately, but in this
case we ought to pursue a legislative solution, even if only to make
the rules clear.
There are many cases where a concise legislative solution is perferrable,
even in a judicial game. This is one of them.
Since adopting a proposal is an Agoran decision, every notice of
proposal distribution which omits a description of the class of
eligible voters is invalid. An Agoran decision is not actually
initiated except by a valid notice. See rule 107.
We are now splintering into two
I don't agree with your adoption of the R991 criterion, at least as
sole criterion for determining public agreement. You can read R991 such
that submission of a CFJ (even if the CFJ is later dismissed or refused)
proves a lack of public agreement, but I think lack of public
iv. Every person has the right to invoke a judgement, appeal a
judgement, appeal a sentencing or judicial order binding em,
and receive judgement in a timely fashion.
Looks good, for clarity, I'd suggest the receive clause right after
I think it's been unhealthy in places. Short delays (such as the
Speaker's Veto in practice achieves) seem fine, but not the indefinite
delays and dropping of proposals that resulted from P-Notes and
artificially restricted distribution.
Well, during the Papyri version of
I personally think we should be more restrictive about free proposing,
people (in general) have gotten out of the habit of proto-ing.
I don't see the connection here.
If it costs something tangible to get a proposal distributed,
you don't pay that cost for a first draft. At
When a valid Notice of Transfer is published, it has the effect
of flipping the owner switch of each of the Goods to the
Please be very specific on the following: If other rules (or contracts)
forbid certain transfers, are the NoTs valid (transfer
Not particularly. Fungibility is a pain to work with. Currencies were
always fundamentally fungible, but implicit rounding and the MUQ were
invented to make them more managable. I suggest using a strictly
quantised model this time round.
fungible ne divisible. By fungible,
I think it's dangerous to change interpretation in such a blanket
manner. I think it would be better to define formal terminology by
which individual rules can explicate illegal vs impossible, and then
amend rules piecemeal to use the formal structure.
Illegal must be
1 - 100 of 7012 matches
Mail list logo