Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3362 assigned to G.
On Tue, 9 Jul 2013, Jonathan Rouillard wrote: > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Tue, 9 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote: > >> I support. I object. (Always wanted to do that and have it be > >> meaningful.) > > > > It's not though... you CANNOT wear two hats :-P > > Pfff. Look, everyone, seems like G. is *poor* and *Irish*. That's a hat and a coat, not two hats.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3362 assigned to G.
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Tue, 9 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote: >> I support. I object. (Always wanted to do that and have it be >> meaningful.) > > It's not though... you CANNOT wear two hats :-P Pfff. Look, everyone, seems like G. is *poor* and *Irish*. ~ Roujo
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3362 assigned to G.
On 09/07/2013 5:46 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Fool wrote: Generally I don't think it's true the "meta-agreement" is subject to amendment by even "true" nomic. There are still limits. What if we made Agora purport to be played by the NZ All Blacks? This would paralyze the rule until we waited for a confirmed NZ person to post, or would just create a legal fiction of role-playing. It's not a problem. And on the bright side, we might get a Haka. Rule 101. kamaté kamaté
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3362 assigned to G.
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Fool wrote: Generally I don't think it's true the "meta-agreement" is subject to amendment by even "true" nomic. There are still limits. What if we made Agora purport to be played by the NZ All Blacks? This would paralyze the rule until we waited for a confirmed NZ person to post, or would just create a legal fiction of role-playing. It's not a problem. And on the bright side, we might get a Haka. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3362 assigned to G.
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Mainly, the sticking point is in the broadness of R2368's "arbitrary", > coupled with the fact that the mechanism CAN be changed within Agora, > but CAN'T be changed by the Party, so from the point of view of Agora, > there is at least one thing thing that CAN be changed by Agora, but > CANNOT be changed by the party, therefore it fails the arbitrary > rules change test. > > (This is different than relying of the laws of physics, which are > outside the bounds of any nomic). Sorry to keep on about this, but here's another thought: The traditional win condition: "omd CAN make arbitrary rule changes by announcement." Now, this allows arbitrary rules changes, even though it specifies a fixed mechanism. Cool, a win. But the key is, omd CAN also change that mechanism by using the mechanism, so any arbitrary change can be made. However, the following would NOT satisfy said win condition: "omd CAN make arbitrary rule changes by announcement, but not to this sentence". That would clearly not satisfy said win condition, as the exception makes it no longer arbitrary. The Agoran method for the Party making constitutional changes is similarly out of reach of the party, so it fails the test of "arbitrary" as Agora has used it specifically with respect to rules-document changes.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3362 assigned to G.
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, omd wrote: > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Sure, a party can do this. And then splinter off and be a nomic. > > BUT IN DOING SO, IT IS NO LONGER THE PARTY that the officer > > Is tracking. > > fwiw, I agree that "splintering off" doesn't count, but I think that a > system of rules that exists in the context of a specific legal > framework can still "provide means for itself" through that framework. > Even if the only mechanism for amendment is an unalterable one > provided by that framework, the system of rules is providing a means > for itself to be amended by virtue of choosing to exist in a framework > that provides such a mechanism. Although it is traditional for nomics > to have rules that provide their own interpretation and be > self-sufficient, I don't think that Rule 2368's definition of nomic > requires them to do so. Mainly, the sticking point is in the broadness of R2368's "arbitrary", coupled with the fact that the mechanism CAN be changed within Agora, but CAN'T be changed by the Party, so from the point of view of Agora, there is at least one thing thing that CAN be changed by Agora, but CANNOT be changed by the party, therefore it fails the arbitrary rules change test. (This is different than relying of the laws of physics, which are outside the bounds of any nomic).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3362 assigned to G.
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
> I had a look. The situation looks to me like this: the question was whether
> Agora would recognise it as a Contest, and when it broke a certain Agoran
> rule, it ceased to be a Contest. There wasn't a "divergent" version of
> Claustronomic that still existed in Agora, which is how your ruling sort of
> made it sound. The verdict was that Claustronomic ceased to exist (as a
> Contest, i.e., as far as Agora was concerned).
That's right. I'm saying that there can't be a divergent version of a
party, either. So, what happens in the following case:
1. Party X creates a constitution that says "all constitution changes take
effect as soon as they are posted on f...@bar.org."
2. Such a rule change from Y to Z is posted on f...@bar.org, but not posted
on Agora PF.
3. An Agoran CFJ is called on whether Rule Y or Z is the true Rule.
4. Meanwhile, over on f...@bar.org, everyone plays as if Z, resulting in a
divergence between possible states (this is the Claustronomic example
exactly).
Well, an easy answer is IF YOU'RE JUDGING WITHIN AGORA, we say simply that Z
failed, Y still exists. This effectively means that the party cannot make
this sort of arbitrary rule change. Remember, all I have to show is a single
type of rule change that could not be made under current Agoran rules (that's
the test of an arbitrary rule change).
Now, there are sneaky ways of getting around this, e.g. appealing to a secret
outside agreement ("even though Agora thinks Y, we're really playing by Z").
But this, in itself, means that the constitution itself is not acting as a
nomic.
> PerlNomic seems like a more pertinent precedent. Now, I don't know Perl. But
> presumably there's no way to say "interpret this in English" in Perl.
> PerlNomic could not become a regular nomic by the processes it defines.
> There's also a CFJ (2168) about whether stuff on some guy's hard drive was a
> Nomic, and it was judged true (thank you again woggle). Same idea.
>
> Generally I don't think it's true the "meta-agreement" is subject to amendment
> by even "true" nomic. There are still limits. What if we made Agora purport to
> be played by the NZ All Blacks?
This would paralyze the rule until we waited for a confirmed NZ person to post,
or would just create a legal fiction of role-playing. It's not a problem.
> A less silly example is, that, even without my consent, you could legally
> repeal the rule saying I can stop playing. But it'd still be a "meta-rule",
> and I can still stop playing.
You could ignore the state of the game, and the game would continue to list
you as a player, and penalize you for not doing whatever. No conflict has to
arise.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3362 assigned to G.
On 08/07/2013 9:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
And when you think about it, no Nomic compels its own rule following. All
Nomics are implicitly mediated by something, and this is not subject to
amendment. Usually this is by its players directly, but there are other
possibilities.
But they *are* subject to amendment in a true nomic. Sure, some of these things
start out as a meta-agreement ("we're all playing in English, or Perl, or via
email") but if a rule changes, any of these initial meta-agreements could be
changed. In Agora (true nomic), we could change the way the mailing list works,
or whether it's conducted over email at all.
But for a party of Agora, as currently defined by Agora, an outside rules body
(Agora) governs these things, they can't be set arbitrarily in the party
constitution itself.
Honestly, the Claustronomic case is worth a read, since it's an official
set of Agoran precedents on the matter (let me know if the CFJs aren't clear,
and I'll try to summarize - actually at the time I had an opinion similar to
yours, but the CFJ didn't go my way).
-G.
I had a look. The situation looks to me like this: the question was
whether Agora would recognise it as a Contest, and when it broke a
certain Agoran rule, it ceased to be a Contest. There wasn't a
"divergent" version of Claustronomic that still existed in Agora, which
is how your ruling sort of made it sound. The verdict was that
Claustronomic ceased to exist (as a Contest, i.e., as far as Agora was
concerned).
In fact Claustronomic's rule changes were not being made through Agora,
but in the usual way. So I don't find it a very good precedent.
PerlNomic seems like a more pertinent precedent. Now, I don't know Perl.
But presumably there's no way to say "interpret this in English" in
Perl. PerlNomic could not become a regular nomic by the processes it
defines. There's also a CFJ (2168) about whether stuff on some guy's
hard drive was a Nomic, and it was judged true (thank you again woggle).
Same idea.
Generally I don't think it's true the "meta-agreement" is subject to
amendment by even "true" nomic. There are still limits. What if we made
Agora purport to be played by the NZ All Blacks?
A less silly example is, that, even without my consent, you could
legally repeal the rule saying I can stop playing. But it'd still be a
"meta-rule", and I can still stop playing.
-Dan
