Re: DIS: Re: BUS: registration and CFJs
Michael Slone wrote: Zefram was a Fugitive from Justice for over nine years. That's funny, I don't recall having any Blots when I deregistered. Now that Blots and Stain are no longer defined by the Rules, do the references to them in Rule 1437 mean that they still exist with their previous semantics? -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: switch off the fountain
Benjamin Schultz wrote: The Town Fountain was created through a scam. You'll have to repeal it through another scam, if you want my vote. The scam is that only a simple majority is required, due to the bug in Rule 105. Actually I could set the AI of the repeal to 0.01 and then I wouldn't need anyone's vote but my own, but I think unilaterally repealing a trophy would be bad form. That's why when I realised a proposal could take effect with such a low AI I proposed a new trophy rule to take advantage of it. -zefram
Re: New quorum (Was DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix unanimity)
Kerim Aydin wrote: This isn't a bug, it's a feature. What's the advantage? -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity
Kerim Aydin 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 I just noticed that Rule 1586 explicitly prohibits such a course of action: # If the Rules defining some entity are repealed or amended such that # they no longer define that entity, then that entity along with all # its properties shall cease to exist. So, specifically, the numerical comparison properties of Unanimity have ceased to exist. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Agoran Arms
Benjamin Schultz wrote: I argued against the repeal of R1020. I lost. Taking a sentence from Rule 105: # If the title is not specified, the Rulekeepor may select any title e # sees fit. it appears that the title of the game, being no longer specified, is up to the Rulekeepor's discretion. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Agoran Arms
On 1/12/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: it appears that the title of the game, being no longer specified, is up to the Rulekeepor's discretion. Archduke Agora never had a title before -- it had a name. And the name ought to be up to the parent... I see no reason to let this get bogged down; there are no precedents or rules that cover this situation, so I think we may as well begin directly Proposals for new rules are invited. In accordance with the rules, these will be published, numbered and distributed by me at my earliest convenience. which First Speaker Michael Norrish seems to be. So the name really should be up to Michael Norrish's discretion. What? You say e's the Rulekeepor too? -- C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
DIS: Re; BUS: Proposal: Egregrious AI Modification Abuse
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 Cobalt, if so did you anticipate that Index has a common mathematical definition so we can use 754(3)? -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity
Kerim Aydin wrote: And like it or not, your argument implies an ordering. Your argument implies that Unanimity has an ordering E where E is less than any positive rational number. No it does not. My argument is that Unanimity is unordered with respect to any real number. So Unanimity is greater than 1 is false, and Unanimity is not greater than 1 is also false. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity
Unanimity is less than or equal to 1 is false. Tell that to Mrs. Slocum. We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
DIS: A better argument for Unanimous working
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 agreement and consent of all. (Merriam Webster). By Rule 1503, the Rules are a binding agreement between players, and the proposal process is defined (prima facie) as a means of determining consent to changes in the terms of the rules as an agreement. A part of this process (R955) legally declares a decision to be Unanimous under certain voting results, without further definition of the term Unanimous. Note that while we've used the mathematical arguments so far, unanimous does not in fact have a mathematical definition, implying the legal or common language usage is a better guide. We should use the legal sense of the term, in that certain conditions (quorum and no AGAINST votes) legally determine that all parties to the agreement have consented to a change in that agreement. 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. Therefore, not accepting a definition of Unanimous as consent to change, and throwing out the change, would legally violate R101. [Note that this only applies as long as Unanimous as defined in the Rules is reasonably like the common language definition. Currently, a vote that meets quorum and has no AGAINST votes is unanimous by the Rules and by common sense: if the rules were re-written so that unanimous were defined as if the dictator says so, that would be so far different from the common language definition that we should throw out the prima facie argument and declare the definition as contrary to R101 rights.] I like this line of thought. It's a good first test of the new R101. It befits our custom of legal practice and the new legal game that the new Rules were meant to foster. It's what I was trying to get at in choosing one arbitrary mapping over another by common custom. It does not contradict my earlier justification of selecting a reasonable ordering for the index. Who knows, maybe even Kelly would like it. -Goethe
Re: DIS: A better argument for Unanimous working
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 *only* votes that pass are unanimous ones, because it's the only place where a voting result is mapped into a common-language definition of consent. Holy shades of Suber! (And How Agoran). -Goethe
Re: DIS: A better argument for Unanimous working
On 1/12/07, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: of selecting a reasonable ordering for the index. Who knows, maybe even Kelly would like it. I believe Kelly maintains that we quit playing Agora when it was decided (*not* by me) to handwave away the Annabel issue instead of reconstructing the gamestate. -- Michael Slone
New quorum (Was DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix unanimity)
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 active decision if you're paying attention. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix unanimity
On 1/12/07, Michael Slone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/11/07, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I *hate* the ultrapower construction, because nobody's been able to actually construct a free ultrafilter. Nobody's been able to construct a free ultrafilter because it's impossible to do so. Hope this helps. Yes, I know. Hence why I prefer the polynomial ratio construction. -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can't prove anything. -- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix unanimity
On 1/12/07, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, I know. Hence why I prefer the polynomial ratio construction. Are you talking about the Schmieden--Laugwitz construction (using a cofinite filter)? Their construction produces a ring with zero divisors, and it isn't even an ordered ring. -- Michael Slone
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity
Eris wrote: On 1/12/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: # If the Rules defining some entity are repealed or amended such that # they no longer define that entity, then that entity along with all # its properties shall cease to exist. So, specifically, the numerical comparison properties of Unanimity have ceased to exist. Protoproposal: Poof! Create a rule with the following text: Zefram is a Player. Repeal the Rule just created. This rule does not define Zefram. It does define Zefram's playerhood, but so do some other rules.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix unanimity
On 1/12/07, Michael Slone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you talking about the Schmieden--Laugwitz construction (using a cofinite filter)? Their construction produces a ring with zero divisors, and it isn't even an ordered ring. Hm, it seems I was mistaken. -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can't prove anything. -- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity
On 1/12/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This rule does not define Zefram. It does define Zefram's playerhood, but so do some other rules. If a rule says X is a Y., under what circumstances does it then define X? -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can't prove anything. -- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity
Eris wrote: On 1/12/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This rule does not define Zefram. It does define Zefram's playerhood, but so do some other rules. If a rule says X is a Y., under what circumstances does it then define X? When X does not exist independently of the rules.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity
Taral wrote: Zefram is a Player. Repeal the Rule just created. I was wondering what would happen if we created and then repealed a rule along the lines of This Rule defines the Earth. The Earth is a planet approximately 40 Mm in circumference, orbiting the yellow dwarf star Sol at a distance of approximately 150 Gm. The Earth is inhabited by a species of intelligent bipeds. I think it would either create a legal fiction that the Earth (and humans) had vanished, or have no effect due to the Earth's independent physical existence. The concept of unanimity, that is of agreement without exception, has an independent existence, but its former numerical property does not. -zefram
