DIS: tomorrow the world...

2006-08-18 Thread Kerim Aydin
Anyone interested in starting an Agoran region of nation-states? http://nationstates.net/

DIS: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 4865-4868

2006-08-21 Thread Kerim Aydin
Maud wrote: 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? -Goethe

DIS: Vote fight

2006-09-07 Thread Kerim Aydin
OscarMeyr wrote: 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 ordinary proposals? Erm, an

DIS: Vote fight

2006-09-10 Thread Kerim Aydin
Maud wrote: 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? -G.

Re: DIS: Vote fight

2006-09-10 Thread Kerim Aydin
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

DIS: Re: BUS: Linked CFJs

2006-09-18 Thread Kerim Aydin
Murphy wrote: 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

DIS: Is it possible to distribute an AI=3 proposal?

2006-09-29 Thread Kerim Aydin
OscarMeyr wrote: 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

DIS: BUS: Switches reborn, modified

2006-10-08 Thread Kerim Aydin
I don't mind adding switches, but this is badly out of date: R1840 no longer exists, and there is no longer any such thing as rebellion.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

DIS: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1589 assigned to GreyKnight

2006-10-08 Thread Kerim Aydin
GreyKnight wrote: If we rule that: (a) All players that were active when 4866 was adopted are considered 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

DIS: BUS: Switches reborn, modified

2006-10-08 Thread Kerim Aydin
Maud wrote: There are other places where switches would be useful... No objection to rewording lots of stuff with switches, especially if it's wording changes and not new concepts. Only new concept I'm worried about is activity. I wouldn't propose that going on hold makes you lose all your

DIS: BUS: I propose...

2006-10-26 Thread Kerim Aydin
Michael wrote: 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

DIS: Agora Nomic Wiki

2006-12-20 Thread Kerim Aydin
Sherlock wrote: 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:

DIS: (no subject)

2006-12-20 Thread Kerim Aydin
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.

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ

2006-12-20 Thread Kerim Aydin
Eris wrote: 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 and no

BUS: Re: DIS: Agora Nomic Wiki

2006-12-20 Thread Kerim Aydin
Maud wrote: A list of the rules yet to be prettified is given at You mean uglified... I find the non-monospaced considerably harder to read for some reason. :) -G.

DIS: Some subnomic updates

2006-12-20 Thread Kerim Aydin
Claustronomic has the current membership: Kolja Speaker Goethe Voter Elysion Voter MaudVoter RedKnight Voter Murphy Voter SherlockVoter I don't know the current score. |+---#---+| Nomic has the current membership and turn order: Sherlock

DIS: Re: Some subnomic updates

2006-12-20 Thread Kerim Aydin
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. -G.

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: The Lady, or the Tiger?

2006-12-21 Thread Kerim Aydin
Goethe wrote: 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, Murphy! -G.

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ

2006-12-22 Thread Kerim Aydin
OscarMeyr wrote: 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

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ

2006-12-22 Thread Kerim Aydin
Quazie wrote: 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

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ

2006-12-31 Thread Kerim Aydin
Sherlock wrote: 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

DIS: Re: BUS: Rook Promotes to Dragon King

2007-01-04 Thread Kerim Aydin
Maud wrote: The Speaker, Clerk of the Courts, and Promotor are mutually exclusive offices. 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 on offices

DIS: Re: BUS: Rook Promotes to Dragon King

2007-01-05 Thread Kerim Aydin
Sherlock wrote: 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

DIS: Re: BUS: registration and CFJs

2007-01-10 Thread Kerim Aydin
root wrote: 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! -Goethe

DIS: Re: BUS: registration and CFJs

2007-01-10 Thread Kerim Aydin
Zefram wrote: The CotC's posting of the Writ deregisters the Player, and the instructing the Registrar bit is null. Thus Goethe is not a Player. 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

DIS: Re: BUS: votes on 4877-4892

2007-01-11 Thread Kerim Aydin
Zefram wrote: 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:

DIS: Paradox resolution without retcon proposal

2007-01-11 Thread Kerim Aydin
Zefram wrote: 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

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Red Tape Scam

2007-01-11 Thread Kerim Aydin
Zefram wrote: 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

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity

2007-01-11 Thread Kerim Aydin
Zefram wrote: Taral wrote: 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

DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix unanimity

2007-01-11 Thread Kerim Aydin
root wrote: 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. -G.

DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: switch off the fountain

2007-01-11 Thread Kerim Aydin
OscarMeyr wrote: 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,

DIS: Re; BUS: Proposal: Egregrious AI Modification Abuse

2007-01-12 Thread Kerim Aydin
Grey Knight wrote: I hereby modify the Adoption Index of this proposal to 2 yellow smarties. 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

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity

2007-01-12 Thread Kerim Aydin
Zefram wrote: judge would be allowed to fall back on game custom and precedent, i.e. use its old definition. I just noticed that Rule 1586 explicitly prohibits such a course of action: # If the Rules defining some entity are repealed or amended such that # they no longer define that

DIS: A better argument for Unanimous working

2007-01-12 Thread Kerim Aydin
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

Re: DIS: A better argument for Unanimous working

2007-01-12 Thread Kerim Aydin
I wrote: 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

New quorum (Was DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix unanimity)

2007-01-12 Thread Kerim Aydin
Zefram wrote: 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 into an

DIS: Re; BUS: Proposal: Egregrious AI Modification Abuse

2007-01-13 Thread Kerim Aydin
Maud wrote: This was indeed part of Cobalt, as it turns out, and I believe I earlier suggested that you had removed it when you repealed Switches. I apologize for making this suggestion. No worries, I was more concerned about figuring out when it happened then who did it (I seem to remember

DIS: a bigger bug -- no gamestate changes?

2007-01-13 Thread Kerim Aydin
Uh-oh, someone find the error in this, otherwise this would make many legislative commands (proposals that change the gamestate) over the past year and a half ineffective. I'm researching this because I really, really dislike the retcon in The Lady or the Tiger. (I'm uncomfortable being

DIS: Dream

2007-01-15 Thread Kerim Aydin
Cctoide wrote: 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, Goethe's Repeals. I *knew* I'd left that somewhere... -G.

DIS: Re: BUS: Judicial motion

2007-01-24 Thread Kerim Aydin
Murphy wrote: Suppose we issued a proposal stating Upon the adoption of this proposal, the gamestate is modified so that Goethe was deregistered in December etc. - how would this be similar, how would it be different? It's a fundamental question of whether you are treating the judicial

DIS: Re: BUS: Judicial motion

2007-01-24 Thread Kerim Aydin
Michael wrote: Facts feed into questions of law as evidence, but if the law says that we must behave as if such as such were true, then that's what we have to do, facts be damned. Nice principle, but exactly the opposite of what R217 actually *says*. -G.

DIS: Rule 1868 Paradox

2007-01-26 Thread Kerim Aydin
Jacob Sutton wrote: Just because it is open before it's judged doesn't mean that's the only time it's open. Check out CFJ 1575: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1575

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Cleaning up after myself

2007-01-29 Thread Kerim Aydin
Murphy wrote: Upon the adoption of this proposal, the gamestate is modified so that Goethe was deregistered due to Rule 1789 (Cantus Cygneus) as of the posting of Murphy's message on or about Mon, 18 Dec 2006 07:44:10 -0800. What exact aspect of the gamestate is being modified so that R1789

DIS: Re: BUS: Judicial motion

2007-01-29 Thread Kerim Aydin
Murphy wrote: 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

DIS: Re: BUS: Judicial motion

2007-01-29 Thread Kerim Aydin
Michael wrote: And I claim that a deeming event *factually* changes the set of legal fictions that we have to respect. Let me be clear, I am only objecting to a very narrow type of deeming. I would not object to: Be it hereby proclaimed that Goethe is deregistered. I would also not

DIS: Re: BUS: Judicial motion

2007-01-30 Thread Kerim Aydin
Zefram wrote: 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,

DIS: Re: BUS: Judicial motion

2007-01-30 Thread Kerim Aydin
I wrote: 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.

DIS: OFF: Judgement of CFJ 1597

2007-01-31 Thread Kerim Aydin
Michael wrote: 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

DIS: Re: BUS: Orange you glad I didn't...

2007-01-31 Thread Kerim Aydin
Zefram wrote: 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

DIS: Re: BUS: Orange you glad I didn't...

2007-02-01 Thread Kerim Aydin
Michael wrote: On the other hand, legal deeming of the sort heeded by the rules is set up by rules explicitly, and also implicitly by the rules governing judgements. Where? Not doubting, just curious. I know it's true about regulated quantities but I'm talking about unregulated ones. An

DIS: Re: Pineapple CFJ

2007-02-01 Thread Kerim Aydin
I wrote: Zefram is a pineapple. Some thoughts: 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. (CFJs 1500-1504) As an unregulated property of a person (Zefram), it is the sole discretion of Zefram (CFJ

DIS: Re: BUS: Orange you glad I didn't...

2007-02-01 Thread Kerim Aydin
Michael wrote: 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

DIS: Re: BUS: Pineapple CFJ

2007-02-01 Thread Kerim Aydin
Murphy wrote: Goethe wrote: 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)

DIS: Re: BUS: Decision on CFJ 1607: FALSE

2007-02-02 Thread Kerim Aydin
Cecilius wrote: *[12] *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.” *[13] *Looking to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, /ratio/ is first defined as “the indicated quotient of two mathematical

DIS: Re: BUS: Makes a nice salad with mango

2007-02-02 Thread Kerim Aydin
First, this is a test case and there's many ways my arguments are probably wrong. Zefram wrote: 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

DIS: Re: BUS: Orange you glad I didn't...

2007-02-04 Thread Kerim Aydin
Michael wrote: You can deem all you like, but the rules will pay you no attention. There is a counterexample. The rules say nothing about choosing nicknames. But if I deem my nickname to be something, the Rules pay attention (CFJ 1361). The fact that there is one demonstrable counterexample

DIS: Re: BUS: Orange you glad I didn't...

2007-02-05 Thread Kerim Aydin
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

DIS: Re: BUS: Orange you glad I didn't...

2007-02-05 Thread Kerim Aydin
Maud wrote: 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

DIS: Re: BUS: Orange you glad I didn't...

2007-02-05 Thread Kerim Aydin
Michael wrote: Nor is the fact that other rules regulate rule changes relevant, for 101 trumps them. What is the difference between changing rules, and changing deemings? I misspoke just now. You are correct. You don't have the right to do what you wilt. But R101(i) grants you the

DIS: Re: BUS: Orange you glad I didn't...

2007-02-06 Thread Kerim Aydin
Michael wrote: The heart of my argument is that all of the rules' deemings *are* regulated, so you can't add to or change them. And the heart of my argument is that there's nothing in the rules to blanketly regulate every act of the verb to deem, so there are deemings that are unregulated,

DIS: Re: BUS: Orange you glad I didn't...

2007-02-07 Thread Kerim Aydin
Michael wrote: 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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Orange you glad I didn't...

2007-02-07 Thread Kerim Aydin
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 on 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

DIS: Re: BUS: OMTTTPF

2007-02-21 Thread Kerim Aydin
Michael wrote: I was talking about the we, not the modified quote. Indeed, but isn't the we part of the quote? Their use was not Royal, but rather anti-Royal. -G.

DIS: Re: BUS: pineapple

2007-02-26 Thread Kerim Aydin
Maud wrote: Your binding agreement fails to satisfy the ``business'' requirement as well as the ``view of profit'' requirement, so it isn't a partnership. Obviously, we haven't shared the confidential aspects of the partnership's business arrangements. I can reveal part of it: 2. ???

DIS: Re: BUS: pineapple

2007-02-27 Thread Kerim Aydin
OscarMeyr: I'm not counting this registration as valid at this time. We'll see how the CFJ goes. These two sentences contradict each other, as it was the Pineapple Partnership that called the CFJ. :) -Goethe

DIS: Re: BUS: Decision in CFJ 1614: DISMISS

2007-02-27 Thread Kerim Aydin
OscarMeyr wrote: 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

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Paragraphs and pineapples

2007-02-27 Thread Kerim Aydin
Murphy wrote: 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

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgments

2007-02-28 Thread Kerim Aydin
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? -Goethe

DIS: Re: BUS: votes

2007-03-05 Thread Kerim Aydin
OscarMeyr wrote: 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 nanny state... -G.

DIS: Re: OFF: Voting results for Proposals 4910 - 4911

2007-03-11 Thread Kerim Aydin
Murphy wrote: * 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

DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Re-divide some offices

2007-03-14 Thread Kerim Aydin
OscarMeyr wrote: 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 time

DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: contracts - rules

2007-03-23 Thread Kerim Aydin
Zefram wrote: (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.) In

DIS: re: BUS: proposal: bootstrapped enough

2007-03-23 Thread Kerim Aydin
Zefram wrote: rule 104 is hereby repealed. I wish you the best of luck, sir. -G.

DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: contracts - rules

2007-03-23 Thread Kerim Aydin
Zefram wrote: 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

DIS: Re: OFF: Rulekeepor's notes for Proposals 4893-4903

2007-03-23 Thread Kerim Aydin
Zefram wrote: 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

DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: contracts - rules

2007-03-23 Thread Kerim Aydin
Zefram wrote: I'd like to turn the whole thing into a set of annotations on the rules, which of course would appear in the LR and so be findable by subject. Heh, how did you know? Probably obvious. The database I'm working on in FLR format comes out looking like this: [Standard rule

DIS: Re: OFF: Rulekeepor's notes for Proposals 4893-4903

2007-03-23 Thread Kerim Aydin
Zefram wrote: 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

DIS: eligibility question

2007-03-23 Thread Kerim Aydin
It is not clear to me if eligibility in terms of Appeals judges includes turning: As soon as possible after an Appellate Judge is recused, the Clerk of the Courts shall randomly select an eligible Player to replace em. clause (iv) of R911: iv) E is ineligible to Judge the CFJ

DIS: Re: BUS: Motion bug: excess CFJs broken

2007-03-28 Thread Kerim Aydin
Zefram wrote: 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

DIS: collated rules history

2007-03-29 Thread Kerim Aydin
Zefram wrote: 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

DIS: test

2007-03-29 Thread Kerim Aydin
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.

DIS: OFF: [CotC, on behalf of] Recent CFJ activity

2007-03-30 Thread Kerim Aydin
Murphy wrote: [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,

DIS: Re: OFF: Herald's Report on Everybody

2007-03-30 Thread Kerim Aydin
OscarMeyr wrote: 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

DIS: Proto-proposal: Excess CFJs

2007-04-02 Thread Kerim Aydin
Murphy wrote: 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 this may

DIS: BUS: proposals

2007-04-02 Thread Kerim Aydin
Zefram wrote: 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 any Rule

BUS: Re: DIS: Changing officers

2007-04-03 Thread Kerim Aydin
Zefram wrote: 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 that

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Agoran Chromodynamics

2007-04-12 Thread Kerim Aydin
Zefram wrote: 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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Agoran Chromodynamics

2007-04-12 Thread Kerim Aydin
OscarMeyr wrote: Any labor above basic grunt (and sometimes even that) isn't truly fungible. Zefram wrote: 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 so mechanical. I mispoke here. I

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Agoran Chromodynamics

2007-04-13 Thread Kerim Aydin
Zefram wrote: 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

DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

2007-04-20 Thread Kerim Aydin
Zefram wrote: What constitutes tangibility? Voting FOR 4930 (democratic for *just* this reason), then a mini- conspiracy to spend enough VCs on em so e wins, thus resetting eir voting power? -Goethe

DIS: BUS: proposal: allow Speaker deregistration

2007-04-20 Thread Kerim Aydin
Zefram wrote: There should always be exactly one player who is the Speaker. No one other than a player can be Speaker, and there can never be more than one Speaker. If there is ever no Speaker then the player whose most recent registration was earliest becomes the

DIS: (no subject)

2007-04-22 Thread Kerim Aydin
Zefram wrote: 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

DIS: problem with R2089

2007-04-23 Thread Kerim Aydin
== 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): 13-Jul 05:55 Fate transfers Enforced Charity to The

DIS: Decisor

2007-04-25 Thread Kerim Aydin
Murphy wrote: 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 new office? Proto: The Decisor is an Office with the responsibility

DIS: BUS: Votes

2007-04-25 Thread Kerim Aydin
Sherlock wrote: 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

DIS: Agora history on the NomicWiki

2007-04-27 Thread Kerim Aydin
Zefram wrote: 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

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement

2007-04-29 Thread Kerim Aydin
Maud wrote: 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 used. Not entirely sure... it seemed reasonable, but if there's an

DIS: BUS: Set of CFJs (a paradox found)?

2007-04-29 Thread Kerim Aydin
Quazie wrote: 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?

DIS: BUS: Set of CFJs (a paradox found)?

2007-04-29 Thread Kerim Aydin
Quazie wrote: 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). -Goethe

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Turning

2007-04-29 Thread Kerim Aydin
Maud wrote: 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

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >