DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 7300 - 7301, 7303 - 7306, and 7308 - 7313
Arkady wrote: On 27 September 2012 02:53, Ed Murphy wrote: Arkady became inactive on May 10 and I didn't find any later message in which e became active, so e was not an eligible voter (even if eir voting limit on 7310 was increased). For the record, e attempted to vote F A F F F, which would have had no effect on overall results. Seriously? On 17 September 2012 15:28, Arkady English wrote: After a (long) distraction, while I got myself a degree, I become active. If I am not active, I activate myself. I CFJ "In the above quoted message of 17th September 2012 at 15:28, Arkady became active." Which list did you send it to? I did see your earlier claim to have become active again, but I checked the PF archives and couldn't find a message to that effect (and it's not in the a-d archives either).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On 09/28/2012 04:29 PM, Craig Daniel wrote: > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 5:23 PM, omd wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> Is "Abraham Lincoln" the name of a person? Yes it is. >> >> I'd say it's arguable - well, maybe a clearer example, since dead >> persons can be considered persons (but aren't in Agora), is whether >> "Bill Clinton" is the name of a world leader: the answer depends on >> the context of the question, but can easily be no, it's the name of a >> former world leader, who doesn't enjoy the same privileges as a "real" >> world leader. I don't remember any CFJs related to this, do you have >> one? > > Ah, but at no point will the slave golem be a non-person. It will > merely go from existing (as a person) to not, without passing through > existence as a former person along the way. Mr. Clinton, meanwhile, > still exists, and is not (currently) a world leader. Is John F. Kennedy a world leader?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 5:23 PM, omd wrote: > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> Is "Abraham Lincoln" the name of a person? Yes it is. > > I'd say it's arguable - well, maybe a clearer example, since dead > persons can be considered persons (but aren't in Agora), is whether > "Bill Clinton" is the name of a world leader: the answer depends on > the context of the question, but can easily be no, it's the name of a > former world leader, who doesn't enjoy the same privileges as a "real" > world leader. I don't remember any CFJs related to this, do you have > one? Ah, but at no point will the slave golem be a non-person. It will merely go from existing (as a person) to not, without passing through existence as a former person along the way. Mr. Clinton, meanwhile, still exists, and is not (currently) a world leader.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Is "Abraham Lincoln" the name of a person? Yes it is. I'd say it's arguable - well, maybe a clearer example, since dead persons can be considered persons (but aren't in Agora), is whether "Bill Clinton" is the name of a world leader: the answer depends on the context of the question, but can easily be no, it's the name of a former world leader, who doesn't enjoy the same privileges as a "real" world leader. I don't remember any CFJs related to this, do you have one?
DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > Enact a rule with power 1 reading 'Anyone other than Machiavelli CAN, > with 2 support, cause this rule to amend itself by replacing all > instances of the name "Machiavelli" with any other person's name.' Eh, lemme suggest changing this. 'Anyone other than Machiavelli CAN, with 2 support, cause this rule to amend itself by replacing all instances of the name "Machiavelli" with any other person's name, as long as the new name clearly identifies that person.' The name "scshunt CAN deregister. G. can cause this rule to amend itself by announcement. No one", despite being a perfectly valid name, does not clearly identify the Slave Golem with that name. —Machiavelli, who thinks that scshunt CAN deregister. G. can't cause this signature to amend itself by announcement. No one can frob his neft.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, Sean Hunt wrote: > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Ah, yes. I create a slave golem named "scshunt CAN deregister. G. can > > cause > > this rule to amend itself by announcement. No one " > > Now I am conflicted. On the one hand, I don't want to just give > someone else a dictatorship. On the other hand, I don't want to just > enact a dictatorship with my dictatorship... Weary and troubled is the conscience of a king... :P
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, omd wrote: > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > The rule says the text needs to be the "name of a person". Once a > > name has been associated with a person, that text is still the name > > of a particular person even if that person ceases to exist. > > It's not the name of a person if the entity in question is not a > person any more. Not at all. We've been through this extensively in terms of unique names for past proposals, past patent titles, and all kinds of past entities. The names continue to identify the unique (former) entities. Is "Abraham Lincoln" the name of a person? Yes it is.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > The rule says the text needs to be the "name of a person". Once a > name has been associated with a person, that text is still the name > of a particular person even if that person ceases to exist. It's not the name of a person if the entity in question is not a person any more.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, omd wrote: > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Ah, yes. I create a slave golem named "scshunt CAN deregister. G. can > > cause > > this rule to amend itself by announcement. No one " > > Since slave golems are supposed to be repealed in the same set of > actions as the creation of the Machiavelli rule, I don't see how this > will work. Personhood and Playerhood of Nomics isn't in the list of > rules to repeal, though, so you can just make a nomic. (Incidentally, > I just noticed that once the changes are enacted, that rule will > purport to give all nomics voting rights, but fail due to precedence.) The rule says the text needs to be the "name of a person". Once a name has been associated with a person, that text is still the name of a particular person even if that person ceases to exist. So we associate the text with a person name now, before we lose a method of creating persons with arbitrary names. Once associated, the actual change can be made even after golems cease to be. That's the theory, anyway.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Ah, yes. I create a slave golem named "scshunt CAN deregister. G. can cause > this rule to amend itself by announcement. No one " Now I am conflicted. On the one hand, I don't want to just give someone else a dictatorship. On the other hand, I don't want to just enact a dictatorship with my dictatorship... Sean
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Ah, yes. I create a slave golem named "scshunt CAN deregister. G. can cause > this rule to amend itself by announcement. No one " Since slave golems are supposed to be repealed in the same set of actions as the creation of the Machiavelli rule, I don't see how this will work. Personhood and Playerhood of Nomics isn't in the list of rules to repeal, though, so you can just make a nomic. (Incidentally, I just noticed that once the changes are enacted, that rule will purport to give all nomics voting rights, but fail due to precedence.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, ais523 wrote: > On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 12:11 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, ais523 wrote: > > > On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 11:59 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, Sean Hunt wrote: > > > > > Enact a rule with power 1 reading 'Anyone other than Machiavelli CAN, > > > > > with 2 support, cause this rule to amend itself by replacing all > > > > > instances of the name "Machiavelli" with any other person's name.' > > > > > > > > I create a Slave Golem named "a person announcing or supporting intent > > > > to do so". > > > > > > > > I announce my intent, with 2 support, to cause the Rule with the text > > > > indicated > > > > by scshunt, above, to amend itself by replacing all instances of the > > > > name > > > > "Machiavelli" with the name 'a person announcing or supporting intent > > > > to do so'. > > > > > > Don't ruin your opportunity here. It looks usable for a counterscam, > > > given that we can insert arbitrary text into a rule without escaping. > > > > I create Robert; DROP TABLES; > > > > Once slave golems disappear, do we have a rules-sanctioned way to create > > persons > > with arbitrary names? > > > > If we don't immediately, IMO might as well just use it now instead of > > waiting and > > hoping for a chance again. > > I don't think so. (Although you can alter the name of an existing > person.) > > I meant, though, that the scam reward rule still needs to be in a > modifiable-by-support state to be able to inject rules text into it and, > say, defeat the dictatorship, if that's something you wanted to do. Ah, yes. I create a slave golem named "scshunt CAN deregister. G. can cause this rule to amend itself by announcement. No one "
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 12:11 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, ais523 wrote: > > On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 11:59 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, Sean Hunt wrote: > > > > Enact a rule with power 1 reading 'Anyone other than Machiavelli CAN, > > > > with 2 support, cause this rule to amend itself by replacing all > > > > instances of the name "Machiavelli" with any other person's name.' > > > > > > I create a Slave Golem named "a person announcing or supporting intent to > > > do so". > > > > > > I announce my intent, with 2 support, to cause the Rule with the text > > > indicated > > > by scshunt, above, to amend itself by replacing all instances of the name > > > "Machiavelli" with the name 'a person announcing or supporting intent to > > > do so'. > > > > Don't ruin your opportunity here. It looks usable for a counterscam, > > given that we can insert arbitrary text into a rule without escaping. > > I create Robert; DROP TABLES; > > Once slave golems disappear, do we have a rules-sanctioned way to create > persons > with arbitrary names? > > If we don't immediately, IMO might as well just use it now instead of waiting > and > hoping for a chance again. I don't think so. (Although you can alter the name of an existing person.) I meant, though, that the scam reward rule still needs to be in a modifiable-by-support state to be able to inject rules text into it and, say, defeat the dictatorship, if that's something you wanted to do. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Public consultation period
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I just want to be clear about something. I see where you make yourself > speaker, but I've missed the place where you remove yourself from having > power-3. Where does that happen? > > -G. I'll do it by announcement before repealing the dictatorship. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, ais523 wrote: > On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 11:59 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, Sean Hunt wrote: > > > Enact a rule with power 1 reading 'Anyone other than Machiavelli CAN, > > > with 2 support, cause this rule to amend itself by replacing all > > > instances of the name "Machiavelli" with any other person's name.' > > > > I create a Slave Golem named "a person announcing or supporting intent to > > do so". > > > > I announce my intent, with 2 support, to cause the Rule with the text > > indicated > > by scshunt, above, to amend itself by replacing all instances of the name > > "Machiavelli" with the name 'a person announcing or supporting intent to do > > so'. > > Don't ruin your opportunity here. It looks usable for a counterscam, > given that we can insert arbitrary text into a rule without escaping. I create Robert; DROP TABLES; Once slave golems disappear, do we have a rules-sanctioned way to create persons with arbitrary names? If we don't immediately, IMO might as well just use it now instead of waiting and hoping for a chance again.
DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 11:59 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, Sean Hunt wrote: > > Enact a rule with power 1 reading 'Anyone other than Machiavelli CAN, > > with 2 support, cause this rule to amend itself by replacing all > > instances of the name "Machiavelli" with any other person's name.' > > I create a Slave Golem named "a person announcing or supporting intent to do > so". > > I announce my intent, with 2 support, to cause the Rule with the text > indicated > by scshunt, above, to amend itself by replacing all instances of the name > "Machiavelli" with the name 'a person announcing or supporting intent to do > so'. Don't ruin your opportunity here. It looks usable for a counterscam, given that we can insert arbitrary text into a rule without escaping. (Only just spotted this.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Public consultation period
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, Sean Hunt wrote: > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 2:09 PM, ais523 wrote: > > On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 14:06 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote: > >> This is a Victory Announcement: The rule entitled 'Win by Junta' > >> states that I can cause it to make arbitrary rule changes by > >> announcement, therefore I satisfy the Winning Condition of > >> Dictatorship. > > > > This almost certainly has to reference Open It Up somewhere. > > > > -- > > ais523 > > > > 6130 was indeed Open It Up and was the way that I amended Win by Junta > to give me my power-2 dictatorship. scshunt: I just want to be clear about something. I see where you make yourself speaker, but I've missed the place where you remove yourself from having power-3. Where does that happen? -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Public consultation period
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 2:09 PM, ais523 wrote: > On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 14:06 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote: >> This is a Victory Announcement: The rule entitled 'Win by Junta' >> states that I can cause it to make arbitrary rule changes by >> announcement, therefore I satisfy the Winning Condition of >> Dictatorship. > > This almost certainly has to reference Open It Up somewhere. > > -- > ais523 > 6130 was indeed Open It Up and was the way that I amended Win by Junta to give me my power-2 dictatorship. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, Sean Hunt wrote: > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, Sean Hunt wrote: > >> I thought quite closely about the Prerogative of Prejudice. I wanted > >> something cool and powerful, but not entirely absurd. My rationale is > >> that Prejudice is not truly a just punishment, and should not be > >> considered a judicial resolution to controversy per R101. > > > > I'm reading Prejudice through a few times and may have some comments; but > > I agree, I'm not so concerned about criminal mechanics - even "unfair" > > ones if they're basically playable - as I would be about R101 (inquiry) > > cases. So that's all good. > > Sorry, I'd forgotten that there was another R101 right in play, and > that is "Every person has the right to cause formal reconsideration of > any judicial determination that e should be punished." Prejudice could > bump up against it, but hopefully it would be interpreted as not truly > being judicial (although it is clearly Judicial ;) ). It's been pointed out that "formal reconsideration" could easily mean "Have Mercy, Sire!"
DIS: Re: BUS: Public consultation period
On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 14:06 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote: > This is a Victory Announcement: The rule entitled 'Win by Junta' > states that I can cause it to make arbitrary rule changes by > announcement, therefore I satisfy the Winning Condition of > Dictatorship. This almost certainly has to reference Open It Up somewhere. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, Sean Hunt wrote: >> I thought quite closely about the Prerogative of Prejudice. I wanted >> something cool and powerful, but not entirely absurd. My rationale is >> that Prejudice is not truly a just punishment, and should not be >> considered a judicial resolution to controversy per R101. > > I'm reading Prejudice through a few times and may have some comments; but > I agree, I'm not so concerned about criminal mechanics - even "unfair" > ones if they're basically playable - as I would be about R101 (inquiry) > cases. So that's all good. Sorry, I'd forgotten that there was another R101 right in play, and that is "Every person has the right to cause formal reconsideration of any judicial determination that e should be punished." Prejudice could bump up against it, but hopefully it would be interpreted as not truly being judicial (although it is clearly Judicial ;) ). -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, Sean Hunt wrote: > I thought quite closely about the Prerogative of Prejudice. I wanted > something cool and powerful, but not entirely absurd. My rationale is > that Prejudice is not truly a just punishment, and should not be > considered a judicial resolution to controversy per R101. I'm reading Prejudice through a few times and may have some comments; but I agree, I'm not so concerned about criminal mechanics - even "unfair" ones if they're basically playable - as I would be about R101 (inquiry) cases. So that's all good. > So if people really don't want these changes to happen, I won't press > them, but I think that in the long run they'll be good for Agora. Wholly agree with removing cruft and scrapping half-systems that aren't working right now. And I agree the scam has given you the prerogative to decide on the next framework. And that it's worth trying a shift in tradition, such that scam-winning players shouldn't feel guilty about flexing their muscles a bit. So other than pointing out little bugs if I spot them I think on reflection it's more than fair, and very possibly for the good of the game, to wholly defer to you in setting tone/flavor/ mechanics, including any Imperial mechanics. Carry on, Sire. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, Craig Daniel wrote: > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Sean Hunt > wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Benjamin Schultz > > wrote: > >> If you wanted a dictatorship in the true spirit of Agora, try scamming a > >> non-player into the dictator position. > >> -- > >> OscarMeyr > > > > Bucky? > > I believe the Secretary of State would be most traditional. I'd say MwoP.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Benjamin Schultz > wrote: >> If you wanted a dictatorship in the true spirit of Agora, try scamming a >> non-player into the dictator position. >> -- >> OscarMeyr > > Bucky? I believe the Secretary of State would be most traditional.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, omd wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> > Also: fun's fun, but I will also deregister if scshunt persists in these >> > changes. Consider that an objection, as well. >> >> Oh, come on. Although I feel obliged to counter-scam (not that it's >> particularly likely to work, since we already elected em dictator...), >> Imperial Nomic is one thing Agora *hasn't* tried in the last 5 years >> or so. > > Eh, I admit it was an initial kneejerk over a Mousetrap, I was coming > around to it anyway; you put more eloquently than I could have. > > Antony indeed. I'll bite and play First Citizen for a bit. > > Though I'll say that I'm concerned about any of R101; getting rid of > fair CFJs is more of a concern than a mousetrap to me, and the single > biggest thing that would cause me to leave. I thought quite closely about the Prerogative of Prejudice. I wanted something cool and powerful, but not entirely absurd. My rationale is that Prejudice is not truly a just punishment, and should not be considered a judicial resolution to controversy per R101. If people are squeamish on that particular one (and it's probably the most significant and controversial element of this proposal), I'll gladly come up with an alternate judicial prerogative (because Certiorari is really quite weak and exists partially just to provide a means for avoiding abuse of Prejudice). In effect, I think that Prejudice is a usurpation of the criminal justice rules to perform arbitrary actions that are detrimental to individuals, rather than a part of the criminal justice system. >> dictatorship scams are sufficiently few and far between that I don't >> really remember the details of any; > > Really? You and I, at least, had the same opportunity last year, but > didn't use it out of sportsmanship (I guess). Very ironically, I think > scshunt deregistered when I got escalated to 3 last year (apologies if > I'm misremembering that, scshunt, but if that was you, it's just a wee > bit two-faced). I did deregister at some point, but it was not, by my recollection, due to the scam. It was due to me being overloaded by my personal life, and needing to break from Agora. I could be wrong, and if I am, you're quite right about me being hypocritical! > It's interesting. As the Town Fountain leader, I was actually all for > playing Dictator back then, but I was talked down by fellow conspirators: > "You don't want to repeat LW, do you Goethe?" That time, it was a far > less apathetic crowd, and persisting would have lost half the > participating, active players. > > This time, it's apathy that brought us here in the first place, so maybe > a shakeup is deserved. Maybe I've bought into that "don't rock Agora" > attitude too much over the last few years. Shakeup can be good: at least > it might stop the "ho hum, let em have a dictatorship, I can't be > bothered to fight and e'll just give emself a Patent Title" apathy. Indeed. The apathy was one part of the reason I thought to impose these changes unilaterally. I think we've had too much conservatism lately; we haven't had really interesting gameplay around since the last iteration of Cards; we have tried at least twice to make short-term economies (ergs and later rubles), and haven't really gotten anywhere. In my experience, the only gameplay that *really* works is when it's tied into the fundamental mechanisms of the game. The final version is tamer than my original thoughts were---I considered making the veto require unanimity and giving unlimited veto, but removing the Speaker's right to vote on any Proposal, even an unvetoed one. I also considered making things that relied on total Favour; that would probably still be a good idea since maintaining yourself high in one Branch is probably notably easier than remaining balanced, as well as more rewarding. But I don't want this to be perfect right away, just reasonably good, and hopefully better than anything we've had in a while. I'm still a player in this game, and I still want >> Actually, this is the closest I've seen to (but still much less >> extreme than) Lindrum World. > > No comparison. What made LW "special" wasn't that it was a dictatorial > large-scale rules change. The thing was, Lindrum's moves were UNDECIDABLY > illegal, in that half the players were just plain old convinced that > Lindrum had cheated and so the game wasn't being played any more. Here, > there's no comparison. I haven't seen any serious legal arguments that > the scam failed. Incidentally, this is why a "lack of fair and impartial > judicial system" is the deal-breaker for me, not mousetrapping. Otherwise, > the whole game is just arbitrary and capricious, and Not Fun. > > As a side note, pre-LW, Nomic World really was paralyzed due to massive > problems with the initial ruleset - it was the first online nomic AFAIK > and things that worked in Suber ju
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, omd wrote: > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Also: fun's fun, but I will also deregister if scshunt persists in these > > changes. Consider that an objection, as well. > > Oh, come on. Although I feel obliged to counter-scam (not that it's > particularly likely to work, since we already elected em dictator...), > Imperial Nomic is one thing Agora *hasn't* tried in the last 5 years > or so. Eh, I admit it was an initial kneejerk over a Mousetrap, I was coming around to it anyway; you put more eloquently than I could have. Antony indeed. I'll bite and play First Citizen for a bit. Though I'll say that I'm concerned about any of R101; getting rid of fair CFJs is more of a concern than a mousetrap to me, and the single biggest thing that would cause me to leave. > dictatorship scams are sufficiently few and far between that I don't > really remember the details of any; Really? You and I, at least, had the same opportunity last year, but didn't use it out of sportsmanship (I guess). Very ironically, I think scshunt deregistered when I got escalated to 3 last year (apologies if I'm misremembering that, scshunt, but if that was you, it's just a wee bit two-faced). It's interesting. As the Town Fountain leader, I was actually all for playing Dictator back then, but I was talked down by fellow conspirators: "You don't want to repeat LW, do you Goethe?" That time, it was a far less apathetic crowd, and persisting would have lost half the participating, active players. This time, it's apathy that brought us here in the first place, so maybe a shakeup is deserved. Maybe I've bought into that "don't rock Agora" attitude too much over the last few years. Shakeup can be good: at least it might stop the "ho hum, let em have a dictatorship, I can't be bothered to fight and e'll just give emself a Patent Title" apathy. > Actually, this is the closest I've seen to (but still much less > extreme than) Lindrum World. No comparison. What made LW "special" wasn't that it was a dictatorial large-scale rules change. The thing was, Lindrum's moves were UNDECIDABLY illegal, in that half the players were just plain old convinced that Lindrum had cheated and so the game wasn't being played any more. Here, there's no comparison. I haven't seen any serious legal arguments that the scam failed. Incidentally, this is why a "lack of fair and impartial judicial system" is the deal-breaker for me, not mousetrapping. Otherwise, the whole game is just arbitrary and capricious, and Not Fun. As a side note, pre-LW, Nomic World really was paralyzed due to massive problems with the initial ruleset - it was the first online nomic AFAIK and things that worked in Suber just failed there. In that sense, pre-LW was much more like B is. Everyone agreed the rules were broken, and we just couldn't figure out how to start it again. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Benjamin Schultz wrote: > If you wanted a dictatorship in the true spirit of Agora, try scamming a > non-player into the dictator position. > -- > OscarMeyr Bucky?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
If you wanted a dictatorship in the true spirit of Agora, try scamming a non-player into the dictator position. -- OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Tanner Swett wrote: > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:34 PM, omd wrote: >> [This currently definitely conflicts with Rule 105 (Rule Changes) and >> might conflict with Rule 2140 (Power Controls Mutability), as the >> Rulekeepor is not an instrument.] > > I would assume that it does not conflict with Rule 2140, as the title > of a rule does not affect its operation—with the possible exception of > Rule 2141, as assigning a title to Rule 2141 can cause the Rulekeepor > to avoid being in violation of Rule 2141. > > —Machiavelli > Rule 2141 disagrees with you. Sean
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:34 PM, omd wrote: > [This currently definitely conflicts with Rule 105 (Rule Changes) and > might conflict with Rule 2140 (Power Controls Mutability), as the > Rulekeepor is not an instrument.] I would assume that it does not conflict with Rule 2140, as the title of a rule does not affect its operation—with the possible exception of Rule 2141, as assigning a title to Rule 2141 can cause the Rulekeepor to avoid being in violation of Rule 2141. —Machiavelli
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
On 27 September 2012 02:23, Ed Murphy wrote: > Clerk's Docket > > Date of this report: Thu 26 Sep 12 > Date of last report: Thu 23 Aug 12 > (All times are UTC) > > Unqualified (Rule 1868) > --- > > All of these players are supine, except as noted. > >Inactive: ais523 (sitting) > Arkady > BobTHJ > CoE: I am active
