Happy 20th birthday, Agora. I register as a player of Agora XX.
Steve
--
Steve Gardner
Research Grants Development
Faculty of Business and Economics
Monash University, Caulfield campus
Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486
e: steven.gard...@monash.edu
*** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away
I vote for that.
Now, what's Rule 324?
Where can I read the Agora XX Rules?
--
Steve Gardner
via mobile
On 24 Jun 2013 18:18, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
I propose to amend Rule 324 by deleting the first sentence.
-- Walker
I submit the following proposal:
Enact a new Rule which reads:
Within 24 hours of this Rule being enacted, the Speaker shall publish the
names and email addresses of all registered players of Agora XX.
Steve
--
Steve Gardner
Research Grants Development
Faculty of Business and Economics
Monash
I vote for this Proposal.
On 25 June 2013 00:10, Steven Gardner steven.gard...@monash.edu wrote:
I submit the following proposal:
Enact a new Rule which reads:
Within 24 hours of this Rule being enacted, the Speaker shall publish the
names and email addresses of all registered players
Good to hear from you again, old friend. And to see other old-timers here,
too.
On 25 June 2013 00:34, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sun 2013, Steven Gardner wrote:
Happy 20th birthday, Agora. I register as a player of Agora XX.
Steve
Steve!! Good morning from
HI Chuck! How are we all doing?
On 24 June 2013 21:29, Chuck Carroll games...@chuckcarroll.org wrote:
Hi Steve!
** **
Chuck
** **
*From:* agora-discussion [mailto:agora-discussion-boun...@agoranomic.org]
*On Behalf Of *Steven Gardner
*Sent:* Monday, June 24, 2013 1:52 AM
On 25 Jun 2013 21:52, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
331 (omd):
I propose that Rule 214 be amended to read:
The Speaker shall choose Judges randomly from the set of qualified
players. The players qualified to judge a statement are the Speaker
and those Voters who voted on the rule
for this proposal.
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Steven Gardner
steven.gard...@monash.edu wrote:
I vote for this Proposal.
On 25 June 2013 00:10, Steven
Gardnersteven.gardner@monash.**edusteven.gard...@monash.edu
wrote:
I submit the following proposal:
Enact a new Rule which
I vote for this proposal.
--
Steve Gardner
via mobile
On 26 Jun 2013 18:21, Chuck Carroll games...@chuckcarroll.org wrote:
I propose that Rule 302, or a Rule formerly having had the number 302 (if
there is exactly one such rule) be amended to read “Players whose proposals
are adopted shall
For all of these.
--
Steve Gardner
via mobile
On 26 Jun 2013 22:03, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
[Missed one...]
Here I'll just number and repeat the four new proposals that were made.
You can vote by replying to this message, privately if you like.
I'll send out a full report shortly.
You should have injected them with an emergency hit of information theory.
Instant clarity.
--
Steve Gardner
via mobile
On 27 Jun 2013 02:08, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, Fool wrote:
On 26/06/2013 12:07 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I was blocking on the
I judge that this statement is FALSE.
R207 is silent on the question of whether Roujo can can legally cast votes
in the manner e attempted. By R217 I must therefore be guided by game
custom and spirit of the game. Game custom is not sufficiently established
to be of use here. The spirit of this
It'll be interesting if Michael rules that this statement is FALSE, on the
ground that the selection of a Judge for the earlier statement (and by
extension, his own selection as Judge) can be shown to be illegal.
On 27 June 2013 21:11, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/06/2013 11:29 PM,
On 27 June 2013 22:38, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
If I receive any proposals promptly, I will distribute.
H. Speaker,
I submit the following Proposals, separated by '==='.
===
Amend Rule 207 to read:
Voters may vote either for or against any proposal within its prescribed
voting
Bravo, Goethe!
Agora XX is wildly exceeding my expectations for it!
Steve
On 27 June 2013 23:25, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Some comments on this set of proposals:
1. I believe each one refers to a well-defined set of entities,
for which I have straightforward links (out
Some notes of my own on proposals 348-352:
On 27 June 2013 23:28, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
348 (Steve):
Amend Rule 207 to read:
Voters may vote either for or against any proposal within its
prescribed voting period. Only messages which clearly and explicitly
Given that Charles Walker did vote FOR, it doesn't matter if Chuck did vote
AGAINST.
On 28 June 2013 00:00, Steven Gardner steven.gard...@monash.edu wrote:
Charles Walker voted FOR and his vote is not recorded; Speaker Fool may
have confused the two 'Charles's. I've no record of Chuck voting
Charles Walker voted FOR and his vote is not recorded; Speaker Fool may
have confused the two 'Charles's. I've no record of Chuck voting on this
proposal publically, but e may of course have done so privately.
On 27 June 2013 23:48, games...@chuckcarroll.org wrote:
Proposal 344 (Yally) passes
The argument (setting aside the retroactivity claim) is that Blob was
immediately required to forfeit. Not doing so would to be sure be violation
of the Rules, but it still can't happen unless Blob sends a message say
that e forfeits.
On 28 June 2013 10:32, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
On
On 28 June 2013 10:36, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
In this case, the effect was your forfeiture (or requirement to forfeit).
It was based on events that occurred prior, but the effect was not
retroactive.
I disagree. R345 describes a sequence of actions that lead to forfeiture.
To avoid
I'd say e remains a player with full rights to continue to play up until
the moment e forfeits.
On 28 June 2013 10:50, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/06/2013 8:37 PM, Steven Gardner wrote:
The argument (setting aside the retroactivity claim) is that Blob was
immediately required
Nothing in the Rules, perhaps, except for the provision in R217 which
states that game custom is one of two standards to be applied before others
where the rules are unclear.
On 28 June 2013 11:38, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Fool
It would be an interesting project to design a terse and elegant, non-buggy
set of initial Rules suitable playing blitz nomic on a mailing list.
On 28 June 2013 13:37, Malcolm Ryan malco...@cse.unsw.edu.au wrote:
Yes, this is definitely a problem with the return to the original rules
idea. The
On 28 June 2013 14:18, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Steven Gardner
steven.gard...@monash.edu wrote:
It would be an interesting project to design a terse and elegant,
non-buggy
set of initial Rules suitable playing blitz nomic on a mailing
the conceptual haziness around exactly what a 'rule change' is.
ftp://ftp.cse.unsw.edu.au/pub/users/malcolmr/nomic/articles/agora-theses/lib-steve2.html
On 28 June 2013 15:20, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013, Steven Gardner wrote:
What I'd be looking for is a ruleset
H. Speaker,
I submit the following Proposal:
===
If there is exactly one Rule which was initially numbered 112, then that
Rule is amended to Read:
The game ends at 00:04:30 UTC +1200 on June 30th, 2013, or at the time
when all adopted proposals whose voting periods concluded before that time
for him. That is why initial rulesets based largely on
his initial set are actually very poorly designed for mailing-list based
play.
On 28 June 2013 22:27, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 June 2013 05:49, Steven Gardner steven.gard...@monash.edu wrote:
What I'd be looking
On 28 June 2013 10:47, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/06/2013 8:43 PM, Steven Gardner wrote:
On 28 June 2013 10:36, Fool fool1...@gmail.com
mailto:fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
In this case, the effect was your forfeiture (or requirement to
forfeit). It was based on events
Hello old friend! I thought of you several times today. How are you?
On 28 June 2013 23:58, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote:
Sometimes you just have to be there.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
--
Steve Gardner
Research Grants Development
Faculty of Business and Economics
Monash University,
H. Speaker,
I currently have 277 points.
Am I tempted to sit tight and try for the individual win? Not for a moment.
I cast 5 additional votes for proposal 364, thereby destroying 250 points.
--
Steve Gardner
via mobile
/2013 9:42 AM, Steven Gardner wrote:
The point of a ban on retroactive application of a rule, especially one
which, like R345, criminalises a certain action, is to avoid a
particularly galling kind of injustice: namely, that people do things
which they rightly believe at the time are legal
I call for Judgement on the following statement: Blob has not forfeited.
Arguments: Punishing Blob with forfeiture for the failure of proposal 346
to pass is a retroactive application of R345, and is thus blocked by R108.
This is so because R345 was not in effect when Blob proposed P346.
--
Gratuitous arguments:
1. By this logic, I could claim that any event in the game - for example,
this CFJ being judged FALSE, or my own failure to win the game -
constitutes a penalty worse than losing and so cannot be imposed.
2. Even accepting that the loss of the game is a humiliation worse
Hi Wes! And how are you?
--
Steve Gardner
via mobile
On 29 Jun 2013 11:44, Wes Contreras w...@antitribu.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Steven Gardner
steven.gard...@monash.edu wrote:
Hello old friend! I thought of you several times today. How are you?
It's like a reunion
Much as I'd love to chat with you all over irc, that's 7am Monday morning
Melbourne time, so I won't be able to join you :(
On 30 June 2013 00:03, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
There will be an irc session in celebration of Agora's birthday in the
##nomic channel on Sunday
On 29 June 2013 22:37, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
It has been my pleasure to be your Speaker for this bit of fast-paced
nonsense. I discharge my last formal duty by including the final ruleset
below. I will also post an end-of-game statement, and I encourage other
players to do likewise.
For my part, 9pm local time (1100 UTC), after the kids are in bed, is when
I'm more likely to have time to chat.
But tomorrow (Monday) night I'll probably be out seeing a friend, and
Tuesday I'm leaving for a family holiday for 5 days and I'm unlikely to
have internet access. So unless you're
14:48, Steven Gardner steven.gard...@monash.edu wrote:
For my part, 9pm local time (1100 UTC), after the kids are in bed, is
when
I'm more likely to have time to chat.
But tomorrow (Monday) night I'll probably be out seeing a friend, and
Tuesday I'm leaving for a family holiday for 5 days
From: Peter Suber peter.su...@gmail.com
Date: 1 Jul 2013 07:13
Subject: Re: Agora Nomic celebrates 20 years
To: Steven Gardner steven.gard...@monash.edu
Cc:
Dear Agoranomicists,
Congratulations on your 20 year game of Nomic. To my knowledge, you're
taking part in the longest-running game
Would love to, but time to get up and make breakfast for the boys.
--
Steve Gardner
via mobile
On 1 Jul 2013 08:37, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 June 2013 23:32, Steven Gardner steven.gard...@monash.edu wrote:
From: Peter Suber peter.su...@gmail.com
Date: 1 Jul 2013
message to Goethe shortly after I registered:
From: Steven Gardner steven.gard...@monash.edu
Date: 25 June 2013 09:18
Subject: What is to be done?
To: ke...@u.washington.edu
Hi Kerim. Or perhaps that should be Goethe.
I have no plans at all, and really no idea what is going on, but I feel
like
On 1 July 2013 14:35, Chuck Carroll games...@chuckcarroll.org wrote:
** **
Thanks to all the players, especially my fellow winners, and many many
thanks to Fool for running such an enjoyable game. Like others have
mentioned, I like the idea of a Nomic with a defined endpoint (being well
Yes, please.
--
Steve Gardner
via mobile
On 1 Jul 2013 19:33, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
If anyone wants them, let me know.
-- Walker
I read the chat logs, and found in it the link to Michael Norrish's Nomic
World page, and so the summaries I wrote of the first six games (which
turned out to be the only six games) of Nomic World, which I hadn't thought
about for 20 years. That was a blast!
The reason that Nomic World died was
My dim recollection is that it took a kind of high level scam (in the sense
of loophole exploitation, there was no attempt to win) to move away from
the Mutable/Immutable distinction. But we didn't get straight to the Power
system - that came later. The intermediate stage involved the definition
I intend to be around for this chat session, in a little under 7.5 hours'
time. Can someone please remind me how to join this session? I don't really
grok irc.
On 5 July 2013 06:02, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
There will be an irc session in ##nomic (hopefully with a few
Thanks, Alex and Aaron. Will anyone else be there? It's a shocking time for
Americans.
On 7 July 2013 14:13, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Sun, 2013-07-07 at 13:45 +1000, Steven Gardner wrote:
I intend
OK, I think I've joined ##nomic, but I can't see a way to chat.
On 7 July 2013 14:23, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Sat, 2013-07-06 at 21:13 -0700, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Sun, 2013-07-07 at 13:45 +1000, Steven
ok, got it now. only oerjan around though atm. No surprise, really.
On 7 July 2013 21:00, Steven Gardner steven.gard...@monash.edu wrote:
OK, I think I've joined ##nomic, but I can't see a way to chat.
On 7 July 2013 14:23, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Sat, 2013-07-06 at 21:13
Class-3 Hazing, Roujo?
On 8 July 2013 10:35, Jonathan Rouillard jonathan.rouill...@gmail.comwrote:
Welcome! =D
I submit the following CFJ to the Ambassador-at-Large: { Lindar is a
player. }
Arguments: While he claimed intent to register, he did not submit it
to the right forum. Something
R2357:
An Elder is a first-class player who has been registered
continuously for at least 32 days, and also registered for at
least 128 days total (not necessarily contiguously).
I was registered continuously from 1 July 1994 until 19 June 2004. If I
registered now, would I
On 9 July 2013 04:16, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Don't think CFJ about a registration attempt to discussion list is
frivolous though :P
According to the OED, 'frivolous' has a special legal sense meaning
'manifestly insufficient or futile'. Since it is well established in law
, Steven Gardner steven.gard...@monash.edu wrote:
On 9 July 2013 04:16, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Don't think CFJ about a registration attempt to discussion list is
frivolous though :P
According to the OED, 'frivolous' has a special legal sense meaning
'manifestly insufficient
Level confusion, Goethe. The Statement Roujo committed the Class-3 Crime
of Hazing. is not frivolous; it alleges that Roujo frivolously CFJed on
the success of a player's attempt to register.
On 9 July 2013 10:10, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jul 2013, Steven Gardner
The legal adequacy of this I will leave to actual players to determine; as
a kibitzer I merely wished to note that it is an artistic triumph. Bravo,
Fool!
On 10 July 2013 11:50, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
HER FELINE MAJESTY DAVY I
versus
TANNER SWETT (aka MACHIAVELLI)
Charles
On 11 July 2013 05:13, John Smith spamba...@yahoo.com wrote:
I CfJ on Would paying omd to not post on the public forums as part of a
legally binding agreement between myself and omd cause a violation of Rule
101?
When you say 'legally binding', are you referring to Agoran, or US law (or
the
On 11 July 2013 12:37, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
There are certain Rules that limit certain types of speech (e.g. Illegal
to mislead in
certain ways, reveal private actions). Are those also unenforceable, you
think?
No. As you noted yourself, limiting certain kinds of
On 11 July 2013 12:55, Steven Gardner steven.gard...@monash.edu wrote:
On 11 July 2013 12:37, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
There are certain Rules that limit certain types of speech (e.g. Illegal
to mislead in
certain ways, reveal private actions). Are those also unenforceable
On 11 July 2013 13:21, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I think we're on the same page then, actually. I mentioned 'punishment'
as a
factor, but I didn't mean it to be the only one. E.g. one looks at the
whole
package to see if the effect on speech is particularly meaningful, can
On 12 July 2013 09:59, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 7520 (AI=3, PF=Y0, Ordinary) by omd
Grammar fixes
Amend Rule 217 (Interpreting the Rules) by replacing:
Differences in spelling, grammar,
Entreco Rule 8, Idealism:
The state of Entreco is determined by what its players believe that it is.
The state of the game can be changed by the consensus (including
unintentionally, if a mistake is made in applying the rules, and the
mistake is not caught quickly).
Yowsers. What is the
61 matches
Mail list logo
