Voting for 324 and 325 closed around 14:30 UTC.
324 (Chuck) passed 4:0 (Walker,Chuck,scshunt,Roujo). It transmutes 110.
Chuck +10 points by 302.
325 (Chuck) fails 2:2 (Chuck,Roujo vs scshunt,Walker).
Full report around 11:00 UTC as usual.
-Dan
scshunt raised 2 CFJs which I was to rule on. I ruled on one with my 6th
report, and procrastinated on this one:
> I invoke judgement on whether Rule 304 had the power to repeal itself
> without that rule change being voted on. I think that all rule changes
> must be voted on and cannot occur au
Good day Agorans,
Voting has closed on proposals 311-323. The validity of six of these
were challenged. Chuck raised a CFJ on 312,313,318,319,320 which I am to
rule on, and I raised a CFJ on 322 which FSX is to rule on.
I rule now: I concur with Chuck and scshunt, amendment of an immutable
On 22/06/2013 10:01 AM, Chuck Carroll wrote:
I propose the following rule be created:
If at any time four or more Voters have identical non-zero scores, the
Speaker wins the game.
Chuck
This has an interesting interaction with 306... you (among others) could
make me win by announcement.
(
I call for judgement on the validity of proposal 322. See rule 105. 322
contains a conditional:
322 (Walker):
- If the Rule initially numbered 106 is mutable, amend Rule 210 to
read ...
This isn't like "the rule formerly numbered 211" which isn't a condition
but a way to refer to a rule.
B
On 22/06/2013 9:09 AM, Chuck Carroll wrote:
I invoke Judgement on the following statement:
The “proposals” numbered 312, 313, 318, 319, and 320 are not proposed
rule changes, and will have no effect if adopted, regardless of the
adoption of other currently existing proposals.
Reasoning: they pr
Here I number and repeat two new proposals:
324 (Chuck):
I propose that rule 110 be transmuted to mutable.
325 (Chuck):
I propose the following rule be created:
If at any time four or more Voters have identical non-zero scores,
the Speaker wins the game.
Voting closes in 24 hours.
-Dan
On 22/06/2013 9:45 AM, Elliott Hird wrote:
I propose that all rules be transmuted to mutable.
One transmutation per proposal at the moment.
-Dan
I invoke judgement on whether or not Goethe's transfers succeeded.
Judgement: FALSE (did not succeed)
On 21/06/2013 11:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
My arguments:
For the first group of transfers:
"Transfer" is not the same as "give". It implies conveyance, but
there are three parties involved:
Good day Agorans,
Since last report, proposal 308 failed and 309 was adopted. Voting on
310 just closed, and it was adopted. 309 amends rule 206 to allow vote
buying, and 310 transmutes 114 to mutable. The current ruleset is
included at the end of this message.
Proposal 308 (Chuck) failed
Voting on 310 closes in about an hour. Report at that time.
Voting on 311-314 closes in about 14 hours.
Here I just number and repeat the nine new proposals that were made.
Voting on these closes in 24 hours.
315 (Walker):
- Make Rule 106 mutable
316 (Walker):
- Make Rule 107 mutable
317
scshunt invokes judgement on two statements:
> I invoke judgement on whether Rule 304 had the power to repeal itself
> without that rule change being voted on. I think that all rule changes
> must be voted on and cannot occur automatically.
and
> I invoke judgement on whether or not Goethe's tr
Here I just number and repeat four proposals that were made. Voting on
these closes in 24 hours.
-Dan
311 (omd):
> - that 112 be made mutable (again - note that this requires unanimous
consent);
312 (omd):
> - that it [112] be amended by replacing "GMT" with "UTC" (for
clarity) and
> by
Voting on these two are closed.
308 fails 3:2 (Chuck, omd, and scshunt FOR; Walker and Michael AGAINST.
It was a transmutation.)
309 passes 3:1 (Chuck, omd, and Michael FOR; scshunt AGAINST.)
This amends rule 206:
> I propose that Rule 206 be amended to read:
>
> "Initially, each Voter has ex
On 21/06/2013 9:38 AM, omd wrote:
On Friday, June 21, 2013, Fool wrote:
Here I just number and repeat the new proposal.
May I request that you always start a new thread for such numberings so
that it's harder for proposals to get lost in the confusion?
Thanks.
I will. Sorry
On 21/06/2013 1:32 AM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Michael Norrish
wrote:
I register for the Agora XX game.
Michael
Now I feel like there was no reason to modify Rule 104.
I know eh! Should we be taking bets on Peter Suber showing up??
Good day Agorans,
Since last report, proposals 305 and 306 were adopted, and 307
failed. This adds two new mutable rules. 305 forbids bribery, and 306
allows points to be transfered by announcement. The current ruleset is
included at the end of this message.
The passage of 305 (Chuck) was
Voting on 306 and 307 has closed. 308 and 309 still open for 12 hours.
Here I just number and repeat the new proposal. Voting on it closes in
24 hours. Full report shortly.
-Dan
310 (Walker):
> I propose that Rule 114 be made mutable.
Voting is closed on this. It passes 2:1 (Chuck,Yally vs Walker). This
enacts rule 305. Chuck +10 and Walker +2 by rule 302. Full report in
about 10 hours.
Voting on 306-309 is still open. Vote early, vote often!
-Dan
305 (Chuck):
I propose that the following rule be created:
No rule may
Voting on 305 closes in about an hour. 306 and 307 close in about 11
hours. Here I'm just numbering and repeating the two new proposals. As
always you can vote by just replying to this message, privately if you like.
Voting on these closes in 24h.
-Dan
308 (Chuck):
I propose that Rule 110
Good day Agorans,
Since last report, proposals 301, 302, and 304 were adopted, while
303 failed. The overall change to the ruleset is just that 211 is
amended, now 302. The current ruleset is included at the end of this
message.
There are three new proposals. Voting on 305 closes in about
I'll send a report out shortly. Here I'm numbering and repeating the two
new proposals. As always you can vote by just replying to this message,
privately if you like.
Voting on these closes in 24h.
-Dan
306 (omd):
I propose that a rule be enacted as follows:
A player may transfer points
On 19/06/2013 4:43 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I think instead of kudos, we should start awarding dope slaps.
Or maybe give the Herald a rubber chicken.
Maybe you need a sort of anti-Herald to hand out this kind of
anti-award. I dunno, some sort of Fool perhaps.
On 19/06/2013 6:14 PM, omd wrote:
I don't care about winning, at least the way wins usually work in
Agora ...
(as opposed to wins such as paradoxes which somewhat cheapen the
whole concept)
Hey! Aren't you about to win by CFJ 3334?
But I'm glad to hear people's thoughts on this topic.
Now
Hello all,
Here I'll only number and repeat the one proposal made that hasn't yet
been numbered. You can vote by just replying to this message, privately
if you like.
Voting on this closes in 24h.
-Dan
305 (Chuck):
I propose that the following rule be created:
No rule may award or penaliz
Hello,
Voting is closed on these. Full report in about 10 hours, but the
following happens:
301 (by Chuck) passes (FOR: Chuck,Walker,ehird; AGAINST: omd)
- 301 amends 211.
- Chuck +(random 1-10 6) and omd +2 by 301.
302 (by Walker) passes (FOR: FSX,Walker,ehird; AGAINST: omd,Chuck)
-
Good day Agorans,
Since last report there were four proposals, and two new
registrations, Chuck and ehird. The rules have not yet been changed.
The four proposals were numbered 301-304 and voting closes in about 13
hours. The five Voters now are omd, FSX, Walker, Chuck, and ehird. Then
the
Proposal 7476 (AI=2, PF=Y0, Ordinary, Disinterested) by scshunt
Staledated
Amend Rule 879 to read "Quorum on an Agoran Decision is the greater
of one-third the number of active players and 5."
The rule used to be "eligible voters with a positive voting limit on
that decision" rather than "ac
Retrying with a "reply-to" header so that you'll reply to me by default.
Original Message
Subject: Agora XX proposals 301-304
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:28:19 -0400
From: Fool
To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
Hello all,
A report in about 11h. Here I
Hello all,
A report in about 11h. Here I'll only number and repeat the proposals
made so far, so that you can vote by just replying to this message. You
can vote privately, as omd reminds you.
Voting on these four closes in 24h.
-Dan
301 (Chuck):
> I propose that Rule 211 be amended to read
On 18/06/2013 7:58 AM, Chuck Carroll wrote:
I join Agora XX.
Chuck
Well, hog tie me to a TTY and set my wizard bit, look who's here!
-Dan
On 18/06/2013 4:46 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
From only having Watched with half an ear,
and Listened with one eye,
how does Agora XX work and which list would I have to be on to play
it? I've gathered it's a speed Agora, right?
Yup, speed Agora, this list, and I reposted the 1st report so
On 17/06/2013 9:06 PM, omd wrote:
Vigintennial Blitz CFJ: If a proposal purports to reward or penalize
voters based on the votes they cast on that proposal, or based on any
other action taken / not taken by any player prior to the end of the
voting period on that proposal, then that proposal will
Good day Agorans,
This time of day (around 11:00 UTC) will be my usual reporting time.
There's not much to report today. There have been no proposals. The
ruleset is unchanged, I will not repeat it.
There are three new Voters: omd, Flameshadowxeroshin, and Walker joined,
in that order, bri
begins
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 20:19:36 -0400
From: Fool
To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org
Greetings Agorans,
I have appointed myself to the Speakership of Agora's Vigintennial
Blitz game (AKA "Agora XX"). I commit to you all that I shall make
myself availble for the duties of Sp
On 17/06/2013 8:29 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Fool wrote:
Meaning you'd actually prefer it on agora-discussion? It seems to me the
discussion forum is busier, but I defer to you guys.
Or if you meant not on agoranomic.org at all, I'll GTFO :)
-Dan
I
On 17/06/2013 8:21 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Fool wrote:
I designate the agora-business mailing list for playing this game
(rule 107). If this causes annoyance to the non-players we can move.
Please. Anywhere but a public forum.
-scshunt
Meaning you'd act
1. An accelerated game of Nomic, starting from Agora's initial
ruleset (possibly slightly modified if necessary), but made so that
timelimits are extremely short. The game would have an immutable rule
ending it within a week if it hadn't already, the winner being the
player with the most points. H
Kerim Aydin, Thu, 13 Jun 2013 21:58:26 -0700 :
For that matter, is the card paradox still compelling? I had a look at the
current ruleset and I'd guess that nowadays the card paradox would be
resolved by R1030 ("In a conflict between rules...") or R2240 ("In a
conflict between clauses of the same
omd, Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:35:23 -0700 :
> Precedence between rules (though not clauses) was largely the same in
> 2005 as it is now; the wording of the card paradox is "that card shall
> be deemed to have not been played", which is not really a rule
> conflict, though it could arguably be interpre
Kerim Aydin, Wed, 12 Jun 2013 07:37:53 -0700 :
Some history:
From 2002 (when I started) to 2005 no one thought about paradoxes at all in
this sense. Paradoxical CFJ statements were simply DISMISSED as meaningless.
I think the aforementioned lawyer had a hand in creating this system (before
my t
Is this (and a bunch of other CFJs on the topic of paradoxes) all about rule
2358? Why not just change that?
Although Rule 2358 mostly depends on the traditional interpretation of
paradoxes as causing fundamental logical indeterminacy, and might have
to be changed if this CFJ finds otherwise, pa
Is this (and a bunch of other CFJs on the topic of paradoxes) all about
rule 2358? Why not just change that?
-Dan
"Lawyers and logicians also have different concepts of solving a
problem.
Just wondering, is anyone here a lawyer? I mean, by profession, not in
any allegorical sense.
(anyone except Ienpw III, who didn't see me.)
-Dan Mehkeri
E can also send scrambled codebooks to one or more participants. This would
be detected by the victims after the fact, but they could not prove it.
This was indeed a serious problem with the original version, which I
should have realized immediately, but the version up for vote has
fixed it, a
Ah, trying to use crypto to do simultaneous moves.
Simultaneous votes on some things can be way more interesting, for
instance in "prisoner's dilemma" type situations. Otherwise the
advantage goes to whoever's checking the mailing list closest to the
deadline.
Now, am I mistaken that the ini
On 15 May 2013 15:14, "Jonathan Rouillard"
wrote:
>
> However, marking it as abandoned doesn't feel right - the players
> didn't abandon the game, it just ended properly.
So, "ended properly" was a possibility not hitherto contemplated by Agora?
Another possibility probably not contemplated by
I'm not a player. I'm just spying on you hatless evildoers.
201 - 248 of 248 matches
Mail list logo
