DIS: Re: BUS: PNP Voting
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 1:25 PM, The PerlNomic Partnership <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This message serves to make votes on behalf of the PerlNomic > Partnership (a public contract). > > The PerlNomic Partnership votes as follows. Each vote is made a > number of times equal to the PerlNomic Partnership's EVLOD on each > ordinary decision listed below. Each decision is identified by the > number of the proposal the decision is about. > > 5565 AGAINST > 5559 AGAINST > 5566 PRESENT The voting period has already ended on these proposals. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Putting the hat aside.
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Taral wrote: > As an unregulated action, I change my nickname to Taral. Whoa. Flashback.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Protoproposal of a defense of democracy
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On the other hand, we *are* trying to model a "fair" judicial system, so >> bribery for judges is a different (i.e. more frowned-upon) matter. > > I'm curious why one and not the other? Ideally, when people vote, they vote however they like. If they want to vote so as to fulfill some obligation, then so be it; that's how they like to vote. Ideally, when judges judge, they judge some appropriate judgement. If they want to judge inappropriately so as to fulfill some obligation, then that judgement is inappropriate and should be overturned, and the judge should be punished. On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 3:34 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 13:25 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote: >> I believe such actions would be interesting to experiment with here in >> Agora. I strongly believe such actions should not be experimented with >> at the State or Federal level of a world superpower. > Well, B Nomic has Oracularities, which is sort-of like ratifying > judgements; when a judgement is made, the Judge can make arbitrary > changes to the gamestate to cause the judgement to become true, with > certain limits (it's with a certain amount of support and without > opposition, or something like that). That accomplishes much the same > thing. In B Nomic, a Priest can include an Oracularity in eir Answer to a Consultation. Answers are adopted with what's essentially Agoran Consent, and both the Oracularity and the Answer proper are either adopted or tossed out to be judged by someone else. An Oracularity can specify any changes to the game state. --Ivan Hope CXXVII
DIS: Re: BUS: Hello, world
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I object as well, there is no harm in the Bank owning extra assets, it > only increases the value of the bank without terribly unbalancing the > AAA. However, if there is sufficient outcry from AAA members over this > I will withdraw my objection. I outcry. I have nothing to do with the Bank, and I feel this gives Bank members unfair advantage in the AAA. The AAA is a contest, after all. -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Resolving Tailor, Herald elections
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The option chosen by Agora is ERIS. I install em as Tailor. You bastards. I have to do work? -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration
All the credit goes to me, naturally, since I pushed em to do it. :P On 01/07/2008, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Cctoide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I hereby register under the nickname cctoide. > > Well, it's about time. You've been lurking for what, 2 years now? > > Welcome to Agora. :-) > > -root >
DIS: Re: BUS: The Orchestra
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, I know the Note Exchange exists, but it is rather convoluted. > This attempts to boil that concept down to something simple enough > that people might participate. What I thought was that the Note Exchange isn't working mainly because there isn't much incentive for people to put up their notes: I haven't been offering to sell my Credits, and even if I were, I don't have enough notes to do anything useful, I believe. Also, I think as it's worded, the Note Exchange agreement makes people spend their Notes to fulfill their Marker agreements even if they have enough Credits to cover them. I think I'll go ahead and change that. --Ivan Hope CXXVII
DIS: Re: BUS: Registration
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Cctoide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I hereby register under the nickname cctoide. Well, it's about time. You've been lurking for what, 2 years now? Welcome to Agora. :-) -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Magenta! Columbia!
2008/7/1 Michael Norrish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > It's +12 (hours) because I started the game from Wellington, New Zealand. > > Michael. > > Hi there! ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Magenta! Columbia!
Ben Caplan wrote: On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 2008/6/29 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Happy birthday, Agora! 45 seconds late, I believe. Wait, what? Does "GMT +1200" mean + 1,200 hours? I assumed it meant + 12:00, i.e., + 12 hours. GMT +12 as of the writing of this message is 15:23 Sun Jun 29. What's going on? It's +12 (hours) because I started the game from Wellington, New Zealand. Michael.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Overturn CFJ 1103!
ais523 wrote: > On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 13:31 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: >> In general, drafting with precedence deferral is bad form, because it >> has the potential to bring about complex webs of precedent that must >> be unraveled in order to interpret the rules. If the rules are >> instead drafted to eliminate conflicts, then they're easier to read. >> In fact, I would support removing the existing unused deferral clause >> from R1030 altogether. > Didn't there used to be a rule that went around changing the precedences > of other rules at random? "This rule defers to all other rules that do > not contain this sentence." The Virus. Later, it was changed to something like "The rest of this rule has no effect, except for this sentence; two weeks after this sentence is added, it is automatically removed". It works better if there are lots of short Power<2 rules.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: comex, I hereby offer you a temporary fix.
BobTHJ wrote: > "Casting a vote of SELL (X) on a proposal is equivalent to posting a > Sell Ticket with a cost of X and endorsing the filler of that Sell > Ticket."? Sounds good for the sell side, but I'd still like to see "I buy up to X VP worth of votes in the obvious optimal fashion" refactored as well.
DIS: Re: BUS: Win by Extortion
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> With Agoran Consent, I act on behalf of Agora to award a win to myself >> and all persons who support my acting on behalf of Agora in this way. > > You can't, because you haven't previously announced your intent to do > so. In case this counts as announcement of intent, I object. Also, would the drafters of the win by extortion rule please explain why winning conditions are secured at Power-2, but win by extortion only requires 1 Agoran Consent? -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Werewolves update
root wrote: > Wait, isn't there supposed to be a two-day discussion period first? > > Also, does it make a difference that neither the nomination nor the > second were to the PF? The contract uses the phrase "by announcement" > without redefining it... Right on both counts, I think. Relevant messages are saved and will be processed later.
DIS: Re: BUS: Win by Extortion
Sgeo wrote: > With Agoran Consent, I act on behalf of Agora to award a win to myself > and all persons who support my acting on behalf of Agora in this way. Doesn't work that way, you have to declare intent first. (This could be interpreted as an implicit declaration of intent.)
DIS: Re: BUS: Win by name?
Goethe wrote: > This following is a win announcement: My nickname is Goethe! *checks* It is. It doesn't cause you to satisfy any Win Conditions, though.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Win by Extortion
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> With Agoran Consent, I act on behalf of Agora to award a win to myself >> and all persons who support my acting on behalf of Agora in this way. >> > > I object. I also object to others supporting this. > > I submit the following proposal 'I don't wana be extroted' AI = 2 II = 1 like the horse who has been brought into the stable for the night?
DIS: Re: BUS: Win by Extortion
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > With Agoran Consent, I act on behalf of Agora to award a win to myself > and all persons who support my acting on behalf of Agora in this way. > I object. I also object to others supporting this. I submit the following proposal 'I don't wana be extroted' AI = 2 II = 1 --- Repeal rule 2189. ---
DIS: Re: BUS: Flapjack
On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 17:24 -0400, Sgeo wrote: > I agree::Agora to this contract::Agora and register::Flapjack I'm going to act as though this failed, because it's not obvious what you're agreeing to. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Flapjack
2008/6/30 Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I agree::Agora to this contract::Agora and register::Flapjack > This is Flapjack::unintelligable. ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Agoran Heraldry
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: > On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> BobTHJ Came Back in a Puff >>> Champion* >>> Minister Without Portfolio* >>> *Dependent on BobTHJ being a player. >> >> Shouldn't BobTHJ also have Left in a Huff? >> >> (f) Left in a Huff, to be awarded by the Clerk of the Courts or >> the Registrar (whichever one gets around to it first) to >> any player who publishes a Cantus Cygneus. >> >> Oops. I award the title of Left in a Huff to BobTHJ. >> >> -root > > And here's the other one. > > BobTHJ Hmm, but the Writ of FAGE assumigly has to happen when (f) is in effect, it's "publishes" not "published" so the award was invalid? CFJ time! (I have to run now, feel free to beat be to it writing one). -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 5434-5440
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
>>> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
>>>
>>> Proposal 5434 (Ordinary, AI=1, Interest=1) by Murphy
>>> Left in a Huff
>>>
>>> Amend Rule 1922 (Defined Regular Patent Titles) by appending this text:
>>>
>>> (f) Left in a Huff, to be awarded by the Clerk of the Courts or
>>> the Registrar (whichever one gets around to it first) to any
>>> player who publishes a Cantus Cygneus.
>>>
>>> Upon the adoption of this proposal, BobTHJ is awarded the Patent Title
>>> of Came Back in a Puff.
>>
>> Here it is.
>
> The Left in a Huff award was presumably invalid then, since it was not
> yet defined at the time you published your Cantus Cygneus.
That was my conclusion too; Left in a Huff was not in the Rules at:
16 Jan 2008 23:38:37 BobTHJ deregisters in a Writ of FAGE.
-Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Agoran Heraldry
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> BobTHJ Came Back in a Puff >> Champion* >> Minister Without Portfolio* >> *Dependent on BobTHJ being a player. > > Shouldn't BobTHJ also have Left in a Huff? > > (f) Left in a Huff, to be awarded by the Clerk of the Courts or > the Registrar (whichever one gets around to it first) to > any player who publishes a Cantus Cygneus. > > Oops. I award the title of Left in a Huff to BobTHJ. > > -root And here's the other one. BobTHJ >
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 5434-5440
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 11:07 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> NUM FL AI SUBMITTER TITLE
>>> *5434 O1 1Murphy Left in a Huff
>>
>>> Text of adopted proposals:
>>>
>>>
>>> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
>>>
>>> Proposal 5434 (Ordinary, AI=1, Interest=1) by Murphy
>>> Left in a Huff
>>>
>>> Amend Rule 1922 (Defined Regular Patent Titles) by appending this text:
>>>
>>> (f) Left in a Huff, to be awarded by the Clerk of the Courts or
>>> the Registrar (whichever one gets around to it first) to any
>>> player who publishes a Cantus Cygneus.
>>>
>>> Upon the adoption of this proposal, BobTHJ is awarded the Patent Title
>>> of Came Back in a Puff.
>>
>> Here it is.
>
> The Left in a Huff award was presumably invalid then, since it was not
> yet defined at the time you published your Cantus Cygneus.
>
> -root
>
Yes, but you awarded it in a later message.
BobTHJ
Re: BUS: Re: ?spam? Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scroll of Agora
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 2:21 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hmm... patent titles aren't assets AFAIR, so the Herald probably isn't > the recordkeepor of them and so it probably doesn't self-ratify. But > CoEing is still useful due to the potential of deliberate ratification, > plus I think it's a good habit to get into rather then remembering what > ratifies and what doesn't. CoEing does not prevent deliberate ratification. Objecting does. -root
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 5434-5440
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 11:07 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> NUM FL AI SUBMITTER TITLE
>> *5434 O1 1Murphy Left in a Huff
>
>> Text of adopted proposals:
>>
>>
>> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
>>
>> Proposal 5434 (Ordinary, AI=1, Interest=1) by Murphy
>> Left in a Huff
>>
>> Amend Rule 1922 (Defined Regular Patent Titles) by appending this text:
>>
>> (f) Left in a Huff, to be awarded by the Clerk of the Courts or
>> the Registrar (whichever one gets around to it first) to any
>> player who publishes a Cantus Cygneus.
>>
>> Upon the adoption of this proposal, BobTHJ is awarded the Patent Title
>> of Came Back in a Puff.
>
> Here it is.
The Left in a Huff award was presumably invalid then, since it was not
yet defined at the time you published your Cantus Cygneus.
-root
DIS: Re: BUS: The Orchestra
How does this motivate any parties to act in any way? What value do Reeds have?
Re: BUS: Re: ?spam? Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scroll of Agora
On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 14:17 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 2:07 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > TTttPF > > > > On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 21:06 +0100, ais523 wrote: > >> On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 14:02 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: > >> > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > -- > >> > >UNDEFINED BUT HELD PATENT TITLES > >> > > -- > >> > You've omitted ehird's new Plagiarist title from Proposal 5568. > >> CoE: ehird has the patent title Plagiarist. > > You realize that only has meaning for things that self-ratify, yes? > > -root Hmm... patent titles aren't assets AFAIR, so the Herald probably isn't the recordkeepor of them and so it probably doesn't self-ratify. But CoEing is still useful due to the potential of deliberate ratification, plus I think it's a good habit to get into rather then remembering what ratifies and what doesn't. -- ais523
DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 5434-5440
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 11:07 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> NUM FL AI SUBMITTER TITLE
> *5434 O1 1Murphy Left in a Huff
> Text of adopted proposals:
>
>
> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
>
> Proposal 5434 (Ordinary, AI=1, Interest=1) by Murphy
> Left in a Huff
>
> Amend Rule 1922 (Defined Regular Patent Titles) by appending this text:
>
> (f) Left in a Huff, to be awarded by the Clerk of the Courts or
> the Registrar (whichever one gets around to it first) to any
> player who publishes a Cantus Cygneus.
>
> Upon the adoption of this proposal, BobTHJ is awarded the Patent Title
> of Came Back in a Puff.
Here it is.
BobTHJ
Re: BUS: Re: ?spam? Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scroll of Agora
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 2:07 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > TTttPF > > On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 21:06 +0100, ais523 wrote: >> On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 14:02 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: >> > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > -- >> > >UNDEFINED BUT HELD PATENT TITLES >> > > -- >> > You've omitted ehird's new Plagiarist title from Proposal 5568. >> CoE: ehird has the patent title Plagiarist. You realize that only has meaning for things that self-ratify, yes? -root
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scroll of Agora
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: > Also, didn't I get a Left in a Huff, or Came Back in a Puff (or > something similar) title by proposal some time back for my 'scam' of > using a WRIT of FAGE to circumvent the 30 day self-imposed exile for > voluntary deregistration? Ah yes, I believe so; I can probably find it but if you have a ref handy, a kudo goes to you. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scroll of Agora
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 4:06 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 14:02 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > -- >> >UNDEFINED BUT HELD PATENT TITLES >> > -- >> You've omitted ehird's new Plagiarist title from Proposal 5568. > CoE: ehird has the patent title Plagiarist. > -- > ais523 > NttPF
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scroll of Agora
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Also, didn't I get a Left in a Huff, or Came Back in a Puff (or > something similar) title by proposal some time back for my 'scam' of > using a WRIT of FAGE to circumvent the 30 day self-imposed exile for > voluntary deregistration? I don't remember what happened with Came Back in a Puff, but I distinctly remember awarding you Left in a Huff. -root
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scroll of Agora
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Left in a Huff: Waggie, Gecko, Kelly (x3!), Swann, KoJen, Zefram, >>Vlad, Andre, Goethe > You've omitted ehird's new Plagiarist title from Proposal 5568. > > -root > Also, didn't I get a Left in a Huff, or Came Back in a Puff (or something similar) title by proposal some time back for my 'scam' of using a WRIT of FAGE to circumvent the 30 day self-imposed exile for voluntary deregistration? BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scroll of Agora
On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 14:02 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -- > >UNDEFINED BUT HELD PATENT TITLES > > -- > You've omitted ehird's new Plagiarist title from Proposal 5568. CoE: ehird has the patent title Plagiarist. -- ais523
DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scroll of Agora
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -- >UNDEFINED BUT HELD PATENT TITLES > -- > : Andre > Admiral:Goethe > Agoran Spy: pikhq > Agoraphobe: Antimatter, BethMo, Blue > Boor: General Chaos, Macross, Murphy, Sherlock, elJefe, > Crito > Current Champion: The Goddess Eris > Distributor:Steve > Entrepreneur: Chuck > Exorcist: Oerjan > Fantasy Rule Catalyst:Peter > Fantasy Rule Compulsion: Zefram > Fantasy Rule Conspirator: OscarMeyr > Fantasy Rule Creator: Murphy > Hero: Peter Suber, Chuck Carroll, Douglas Hofstadter > Historian: Vlad > Honorless Worm: Kelly > Left in a Huff: Waggie, Gecko, Kelly (x3!), Swann, KoJen, Zefram, >Vlad, Andre, Goethe > Maniac: Craig, Peekee, root > Miscreant: Pakaran > Nomic Thief:Swann > Originator: Chuck > Pugachev: Goethe > Robespierre:Goethe > Samurai:Michael, Murphy > Shogun: Michael > Sorcerer's Apprentice: comex > > Winners' Cups > Paper Cup: Dave Bowen, favor, Garth, Harlequin, Ian, Jeffrey, >Michael, Murphy, Oerjan, Timothy, Vanyel > Tin Cup: Blob > Glass Cup: Swann, elJefe, KoJen, Troublemaker at Large, Wes > Crystal Cup: Andre, Chuck, Morendil > Gold Cup: General Chaos > Ruby Cup: Steve > Supreme Cup: Crito You've omitted ehird's new Plagiarist title from Proposal 5568. -root
DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scroll of Agora
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > the not-quite-birthday HERALD'S REPORT - June 30, 2008 > > > HERALD'S HISTORY CORNER (*NEW!*) > > > DID YOU KNOW? > Samurai, Shogun, and Honorless Worm are "Kudos-related" titles. > > Kudos were a zero-sum measure of Players' honor and respect for each > other. Once per week, a player could increase someone's kudos (other > than eir own) at the expense of someone else's (perhaps eir own), if > e gave a reason. Typical uses: "I increase Murphy's kudos by one by > decreasing mine by one, to thank em for helping me with my report" or > (to encourage good behavior and discourage bad) "I increase Eris's > kudos by one (for making a good judgement) by decreasing Goethe's > kudos by one (for being such a jerk while arguing against said good > judgement)." In reality, there was some kudo inflation as players > tended to decrease kudos of "vanished inactive" players prior to de- > registration, so as to award without punishing. > > Players with kudos above a certain high threshold were Samurai. The > Shogun was e with the most kudos at any given time, the Honorless Worm > the least; titles below reflect the instant kudos were repealed ca. > 2002. Some insight may be gained by the fact that the last holder of > "Honorless Worm" was the only person to have Left in a Huff thrice. > Hooray! I hope this becomes a regular feature of the Herald's report (on a new subject each report of course). BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Win by name?
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> This following is a win announcement: My nickname is Goethe! > > I'd think the Herald would want to avoid setting a precedent of > explicitly labeling random announcements as win announcements. Stuff > like "The following is a win announcement: I have 7 ribbons" could, > annoyingly, send you off to check to make sure you remember just how > many ribbons someone needs to win. Fortunately, Renaissance is achieved by spending the ribbons, not by announcing their existence. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Win by name?
On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 15:53 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This following is a win announcement: My nickname is Goethe! > > I'd think the Herald would want to avoid setting a precedent of > explicitly labeling random announcements as win announcements. Stuff > like "The following is a win announcement: I have 7 ribbons" could, > annoyingly, send you off to check to make sure you remember just how > many ribbons someone needs to win. AFAIR wins by ribbons aren't based on win announcements. Neither was Zefram's recent Win by Musicianship. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Win by name?
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This following is a win announcement: My nickname is Goethe! I'd think the Herald would want to avoid setting a precedent of explicitly labeling random announcements as win announcements. Stuff like "The following is a win announcement: I have 7 ribbons" could, annoyingly, send you off to check to make sure you remember just how many ribbons someone needs to win.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Win by name?
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> This following is a win announcement: My nickname is Goethe! >> >> -Goethe >> > Huh? I thought you were the champion of the anti-ISIDTID crowd? What? I did actually make a correct announcement. ais523 has analyzed it correctly though: no win, just a (very) little joke. ;) -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Win by name?
2008/6/30 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Huh? I thought you were the champion of the anti-ISIDTID crowd? > > BobTHJ > It IS a win announcement, though. Maybe e's doing a scam involving one. ehird
DIS: Prerogatives
Just checking, I'm assuming: 1. When someone ceases to be MwoP, they hold onto their previous prerogatives; 2. When someone ceases to be a player, they hold onto their previous prerogatives; Someone tell me if I'm assuming wrong, please. -Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: Win by name?
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This following is a win announcement: My nickname is Goethe! > > -Goethe > Huh? I thought you were the champion of the anti-ISIDTID crowd? BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Win by name?
On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 12:40 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > This following is a win announcement: My nickname is Goethe! Ah, a correct announcement clearly labeled as a win announcement. Unfortunately, I don't think it meets any of the Winning Conditions, so despite it being a win announcement it doesn't cause you to win. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Overturn CFJ 1103!
On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 13:31 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: > In general, drafting with precedence deferral is bad form, because it > has the potential to bring about complex webs of precedent that must > be unraveled in order to interpret the rules. If the rules are > instead drafted to eliminate conflicts, then they're easier to read. > In fact, I would support removing the existing unused deferral clause > from R1030 altogether. Didn't there used to be a rule that went around changing the precedences of other rules at random? "This rule defers to all other rules that do not contain this sentence." -- ais523
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Protoproposal of a defense of democracy
On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 13:25 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote: > I believe such actions would be interesting to experiment with here in > Agora. I strongly believe such actions should not be experimented with > at the State or Federal level of a world superpower. Well, B Nomic has Oracularities, which is sort-of like ratifying judgements; when a judgement is made, the Judge can make arbitrary changes to the gamestate to cause the judgement to become true, with certain limits (it's with a certain amount of support and without opposition, or something like that). That accomplishes much the same thing. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Overturn CFJ 1103!
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In a conflict between Rules with different Power, the Rule with > the higher Power takes precedence over the Rule with the lower > Power, unless the Rule with the higher Power says otherwise. We don't need this. Generally, when this comes up, it means one of three things: 1) The definition in the higher-powered rule doesn't actually need to be at that power, and it can be refactored out into a rule of the lower power. 2) The definition in the higher-powered rule does need to be at that power, and the lower-powered rule should be upmutated to match. 3) The definition in the higher-powered rule does need to be at that power but can safely be supplemented by rules of the lower power. In this case, the higher-powered rule should be rewritten to avoid creating a conflict in the first place. In general, drafting with precedence deferral is bad form, because it has the potential to bring about complex webs of precedent that must be unraveled in order to interpret the rules. If the rules are instead drafted to eliminate conflicts, then they're easier to read. In fact, I would support removing the existing unused deferral clause from R1030 altogether. The same reasoning is true for claims of precedence as well, but those are useful as a preventative measure, for preventing other rules of the same power from inadvertently interfering with an important rule's operation. They should still be used sparingly, however. -root
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Protoproposal of a defense of democracy
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Haven't you followed modern american judicial proceedings? The law be >> damned. Legislation from the bench is the new politically correct >> wave. It is a convenient way to override the inconvenient majority. > > Not to turn this into a political thread, but the judicial branch was > never meant to be majority rule, so as to keep politics out of the > courts as much as possible. If it were otherwise, then Supreme Court > Justice would be an elected office. > Yes, I was referring to what seems to be a recent trend (though perhaps it's not as recent as I would believe) to use judicial review to throw out either direct majority rule decisions (ballot initiatives / state constitution amendments) or indirect ones (legislative law) NOT based on conflict with constitutional provision but simply based upon the partisanship of the judge(s). I believe such actions would be interesting to experiment with here in Agora. I strongly believe such actions should not be experimented with at the State or Federal level of a world superpower. I now step down off my political soapbox. BobTHJ
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Protoproposal of a defense of democracy
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: >> 2008/6/30 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> Haven't you followed modern american judicial proceedings? > > Religiously (ooh, bad word choice). I'd agree with you if you say the > "modern" trend began with Marbury v. Madison (1803). > Having never read about this case before I was surprised to learn this was US Historyit reads a lot more like Agoran History. BobTHJ
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Protoproposal of a defense of democracy
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'm working on a proto that brings back the three-tiered Ordinary-> >> Democratic -> Sane. Along with cards. Stay tuned. But yes, I fully >> agree that there should *always* be a high-powered "safe mode" that is a >> straight-up single-vote poll of biological persons in the game. -Goethe > > As I understand it, the original rationale behind that system was that > Ordinary proposals were for ordinary dreck that most voters didn't > want to deal with, back in a time when there were 20+ proposals per > week. Is that something we still want / need? I vastly, vastly enjoyed the Oligarchic time period, because you could form a workable coalition (not scam, I mean long-term coalition). And also, votes were worth more for deal-making. "Ordinary" dreck may be the source of the name but there were many interesting proposals there, too. For those who are new, the system was three-tiered: - Only ~6 players (the Oligarchs) could vote on Ordinary proposals. Methods of appointing Oligarchs ranged over time from winning an auction for the position (with rotation out) to holding a (tradable) Oligarch card to it being a Win perk. There were ranks withing the oligarchs (low, middle, high getting 1,2,3 votes). Quorum was 3. Tactics of voting with a small group were meaningful and at times intense. - Democratic proposals were like today's ordinary: you could build up "VPDP", though for safety (democratic could be high-powered proposals) it maxed at max=5*min or so. - Sane was 1 person/1 vote. For safety, a Democratic proposal could always be sanitized (oh hey, a pun!) although at a cost. (There were bells and whistles: insane proposals, Senate, etc, but these were the main three). -Goethe
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Protoproposal of a defense of democracy
2008/6/30 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Religiously (ooh, bad word choice) Somehow I think the "dead persons = people" debate will go that way. [EMAIL PROTECTED] death ehird
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Protoproposal of a defense of democracy
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Haven't you followed modern american judicial proceedings? The law be > damned. Legislation from the bench is the new politically correct > wave. It is a convenient way to override the inconvenient majority. Not to turn this into a political thread, but the judicial branch was never meant to be majority rule, so as to keep politics out of the courts as much as possible. If it were otherwise, then Supreme Court Justice would be an elected office. -root
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Protoproposal of a defense of democracy
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm working on a proto that brings back the three-tiered Ordinary-> > Democratic -> Sane. Along with cards. Stay tuned. But yes, I fully > agree that there should *always* be a high-powered "safe mode" that is a > straight-up single-vote poll of biological persons in the game. -Goethe As I understand it, the original rationale behind that system was that Ordinary proposals were for ordinary dreck that most voters didn't want to deal with, back in a time when there were 20+ proposals per week. Is that something we still want / need? -root
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Protoproposal of a defense of democracy
2008/6/30 Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I fully support legislative play for ordinary decisions, but not > democratic decisions. As far as I'm concerned, the point of the > distinction is to have a playground for decisions on things that won't > completely change things, but when there are important things going > on, to have an unspoiled democracy. > Not really. It's more like if you're doing crazier stuff you can't rush it in. IMO, at least. ehird
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Protoproposal of a defense of democracy
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: > 2008/6/30 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Haven't you followed modern american judicial proceedings? Religiously (ooh, bad word choice). I'd agree with you if you say the "modern" trend began with Marbury v. Madison (1803). -Goethe
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Protoproposal of a defense of democracy
2008/6/30 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Haven't you followed modern american judicial proceedings? The law be > damned. Legislation from the bench is the new politically correct > wave. It is a convenient way to override the inconvenient majority. > > BobTHJ > Let's adopt it posthaste. ehird
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Protoproposal of a defense of democracy
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On the other hand, we *are* trying to model a "fair" judicial system, so >>> bribery for judges is a different (i.e. more frowned-upon) matter. >>> >> >> I'm curious why one and not the other? > > Well, bearing in mind this is my opinion, I've always seen Agora as a > "constitutional structure" playing game; e.g. we're modeling a legislature > and a judicial system. Legislature is a political beast in which back-room > deals, trade-offs, and (political) backstabbing are part of the fabric of > the game, and you don't really need to give a reason for a vote. The > judicial system is about respect for the system of laws, and such, should > be driven by "reasons" and those sorts of politics should be "frowned upon." > Haven't you followed modern american judicial proceedings? The law be damned. Legislation from the bench is the new politically correct wave. It is a convenient way to override the inconvenient majority. BobTHJ
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Protoproposal of a defense of democracy
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Sgeo wrote: >> Keeping in mind there are some who have frowned upon legislative play too, >> and believe 1 person/1 vote and no bribery for all proposals should be >> relatively sacred. And of course those who don't mind bribing judges :). > > I fully support legislative play for ordinary decisions, but not > democratic decisions. As far as I'm concerned, the point of the > distinction is to have a playground for decisions on things that won't > completely change things, but when there are important things going > on, to have an unspoiled democracy. I'm working on a proto that brings back the three-tiered Ordinary-> Democratic -> Sane. Along with cards. Stay tuned. But yes, I fully agree that there should *always* be a high-powered "safe mode" that is a straight-up single-vote poll of biological persons in the game. -Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: The Orchestra
On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 10:12 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
> I agree to the following which becomes a contract once someone else agrees:
> {
> 1. This contract is called The Orchestra. This is a public contract.
That contract doesn't actually impose any obligations ever, it just
tracks EVLOD increases, and so people can leave whenever. It probably
ought to be fixed to, say, give everyone 2 Reeds to start with and
insist that they have at least 2 Reeds or they can't leave.
--
ais523
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Protoproposal of a defense of democracy
> Keeping in mind there are some who have frowned upon legislative play too, > and believe 1 person/1 vote and no bribery for all proposals should be > relatively sacred. And of course those who don't mind bribing judges :). I fully support legislative play for ordinary decisions, but not democratic decisions. As far as I'm concerned, the point of the distinction is to have a playground for decisions on things that won't completely change things, but when there are important things going on, to have an unspoiled democracy.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Protoproposal of a defense of democracy
2008/6/30 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Keeping in mind there are some who have frowned upon legislative play too, > and believe 1 person/1 vote Democratic revolutionaries! :P ehird
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Protoproposal of a defense of democracy
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On the other hand, we *are* trying to model a "fair" judicial system, so >> bribery for judges is a different (i.e. more frowned-upon) matter. >> > > I'm curious why one and not the other? Well, bearing in mind this is my opinion, I've always seen Agora as a "constitutional structure" playing game; e.g. we're modeling a legislature and a judicial system. Legislature is a political beast in which back-room deals, trade-offs, and (political) backstabbing are part of the fabric of the game, and you don't really need to give a reason for a vote. The judicial system is about respect for the system of laws, and such, should be driven by "reasons" and those sorts of politics should be "frowned upon." Keeping in mind there are some who have frowned upon legislative play too, and believe 1 person/1 vote and no bribery for all proposals should be relatively sacred. And of course those who don't mind bribing judges :). -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: comex, I hereby offer you a temporary fix.
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 6:21 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Speaking personally, the more effort it takes, the less often anyone > will bother. I suggest amending the Vote Market so that, instead of > a three-step specific process: > > Alice> I offer to sell my vote on 6000 for 1 VP >Bob> I vote FOR 6000; I accept Alice's offer, please vote FOR > Alice> I vote FOR 6000 > > votes can be sold in a two-step general process: > > Alice> I sell my vote on 6000 for 1 VP >Bob> I vote FOR 6000; I spend up to 5 VP to buy votes > > via clauses something like these: > > "I sell my vote on for " is equivalent to > conditionally voting "endorsing the person (if any) who buys my vote; > if they are not an eligible voter, then as they direct; if there is > no such person, then no vote". > > "I spend up to to buy votes" is equivalent to buying whatever > votes are for sale, cheapest first, ties broken in favor of those that > went on sale first, up to a maximum total expenditure of ; vote > purchases are processed in the order they are made. > What if the Vote Market contained a clause: "Casting a vote of SELL (X) on a proposal is equivalent to posting a Sell Ticket with a cost of X and endorsing the filler of that Sell Ticket."? BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Proto: The Reformed Vote Market
"14. Whenever a party owns more than 40 OVs, any party may transfer the OVs e owns in excess of 40 to the Lost and Found department by announcement." I think the wording is a bit awkward..
DIS: Re: BUS: I think.
comex wrote: >And I also nominate ZEFRAM, because coming out of the blue to nominate >Pavrita is... a little suspicious. Damn, rumbled. Yep, I'm a werewolf. In fact, I'm both werewolves. Pavitra gave sufficient reason to suspect em of lupine tendencies. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: I think.
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 11:54 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Elliott Hird > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I nominate comex for lynching. >> >> Why? >> >> E was the one who told me to nominate Wooble (after Wooble nominated em). >> >> E said that if I did, e'd vote against any possible nomination of me. >> >> I'm not totally sure but it seems reasonable. >> >> I also think Pavitra might be a werewolf. > > Hmph. So many accusations! But ehird has still not accepted my offer of > chits! > > I nominate EHIRD. > > And I also nominate ZEFRAM, because coming out of the blue to nominate > Pavrita is... a little suspicious. I nominate myself, because I feel left out. Wait, no I don't. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: I think.
2008/6/30 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hmph. So many accusations! But ehird has still not accepted my offer of > chits! > > I nominate EHIRD. > > And I also nominate ZEFRAM, because coming out of the blue to nominate > Pavrita is... a little suspicious. > Your arguments suck. ehird
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Protoproposal of a defense of democracy
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well it's classic Nomic prisoners dilemma etc., but I disagree that > it's boring, any more than playing Werewolf (that's been played many > times before) is boring. The prisoner's dilemma gets a lot less interesting when you let the prisoners act conditionally. Of course, if everyone tries to vote conditionally we'll fail quorum, most likely.
DIS: Proto: The Reformed Vote Market
Here are my ideas on how to fix problems I perceive in the Vote Market.
This would also contain a self-repealing paragraph to fix OV holdings
for the new definitions and to remove VPs (VPs are more valuable than
OVs, and anyway need to be balanced); also, if my fill-lots-of-times
scam worked, I'd be willing to set up the new OV holdings as if I'd only
bought 2 VP with it, and such that I'm released from all but 2 of the
obligations imposed on me during the scam (hopefully returning things to
about normal). I'll write explanations of my changes in square brackets.
{{{
1. The name of this contract is the Reformed Vote Market. The Broker is
responsible for maintaining the Vote Market.
The Broker is BobTHJ.
[Remove "Initially"; that way the contract's text tracks the Broker,
rather than having it as untracked internal contract gamestate.]
2. Ordinary Votes (OVs) are a currency used in the Vote Market. The
Broker is the recordkeeper of OV.
[Because it's impossible to own fewer than 0 of an asset.]
3. At any time a party CAN post a Sell Ticket by announcement. A Sell
Ticket must include:
* A description of an action that the party is able to take.
* A cost in OVs
If it becomes impossible for the party to perform the specified
action, the Sell Ticket expires and ceases to exist.
4. Any party CAN fill an existing Sell Ticket by announcement if e has
at least as many OVs as its cost. When e does so, a number of OVs equal
to that Sell Ticket's specified cost is transferred to the party who
posted the Sell Ticket. The party who posted the Sell Ticket is then
obligated to take the action described in the Sell Ticket as soon as
possible. However, if for any reason during the 48 hours following the
filling of a Sell Ticket it becomes impossible for the party who posted
the Sell Ticket to perform the specified action then e is released from
such obligation. When a Sell Ticket is filled, it expires and ceases to
exist.
5. At any time a party CAN post a Buy Ticket by announcement. A Buy
Ticket must include:
* A description of an action
* A cost in one or more currencies (typically OVs), which may be
conditional or variable as long as it can be determined with certainty
when that ticket is filled
* Optionally, a set of target parties. If not specified, this defaults
to the set of all parties to the Vote Market agreement. Only parties
designated as targets may fill a ticket.
A Buy Ticket expires and ceases to exist if it becomes impossible for
any party to perform the specified action.
6. Any party CAN fill an existing Buy Ticket by announcing it; when e
does so, that Buy Ticket's specified cost is transferred to the filling
party. If this transfer succeeded, the filling party is then obligated
to take the action specified by the Buy Ticket as soon as possible.
A Buy Ticket that has been filled expires and ceases to exist unless
otherwise specified by its poster.
7. Any player may join the Vote Market by announcement. Upon a
first-class player joining the Vote Market, 20 OVs are created
in the possession of that player.
[20 rather than 50, and OVs are less valuable than VPs. This is to
prevent stockpiling of OVs, and to prevent massive debts (e.g. comex's)
which have no realistic chance of being escaped from.]
8. Any party with 20 or more OVs may cease to be bound by the Vote
Market agreement by announcement. Upon such an announcement 20 OVs held
by that player are destroyed. A party MAY NOT cease to be party to this
agreement by any other means. Regardless of the above, no party may
cease to be bound by this agreement if that party has an unfulfilled
obligation imposed upon them by this agreement.
[Keep a zero-sum here.]
9. Any party may amend this agreement with the majority consent of the
other parties.
10. An "indebted party" is a party with fewer than 20 OVs. By
announcement, any party to this contract may act on behalf of an
indebted party to cause em to post either of the following Sell Tickets,
specifying any cost in OVs that is at least 1 OV:
a) SELL TICKET. On an ordinary Agoran Decision specified by the filler,
vote so that at the end of its voting period, the poster of this ticket
has cast at least as many FOR votes on the specified decision as this
ticket's cost in OVs, or alternatively refund the cost of this ticket
to the filler if the specified decision becomes Democratic.
b) SELL TICKET. On an ordinary Agoran Decision specified by the filler,
vote so that at the end of its voting period, the poster of this ticket
has cast at least as many AGAINST votes on the specified decision as
this ticket's cost in OVs, or alternatively refund the cost of this
ticket to the filler if the specified decision becomes Democratic.
If it becomes impossible for an indebted party to simultaneously fill
all the accepted Sell Tickets that they have created due to this
agreement, they may refund the cost of one or more of those tickets to
eir fillers to release emself from eir obligations under the tickets
whose costs
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Protoproposal of a defense of democracy
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On the other hand, we *are* trying to model a "fair" judicial system, so > bribery for judges is a different (i.e. more frowned-upon) matter. > I'm curious why one and not the other? BobTHJ
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Protoproposal of a defense of democracy
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Zefram wrote: > Quazie wrote: >> I was just surprised to find that Bribing wasn't illegal, thats all, >> so I decided to see what would happen. > > Precedent is that it gets voted down. The *first* bribery attempt of > a novel type generally succeeds, but reiterations are frowned upon. > (Your prisoners' dilemma proposal might be sufficiently novel to garner > interest, but the other two have been done before.) Precedent doesn't mean much in a legislature: in fact its the nature of a new government or legislative collection to reverse the previous administration's votes. -Goethe
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Protoproposal of a defense of democracy
Quazie wrote: >I was just surprised to find that Bribing wasn't illegal, thats all, >so I decided to see what would happen. Precedent is that it gets voted down. The *first* bribery attempt of a novel type generally succeeds, but reiterations are frowned upon. (Your prisoners' dilemma proposal might be sufficiently novel to garner interest, but the other two have been done before.) -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Buy Tickets
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, ais523 wrote: > On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 09:59 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, ais523 wrote: > I'm willing to bear the risk of being outbid on this. (It would still > cost 2VP for someone else to retract and revote on your behalf, right?) Yep! You did it right. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Proto Proposals galore!
Quazie wrote:
>This is just to ensure that dead humans can be considered people if
>they need to be.
But they're not people. They have no social personality and no capacity
to act on their own behalf. They should correspondingly have no legal
personality. It's vitally important that we recognise that they're not
valid subjects of duties.
(Actually, in Western culture, a human who has just died is still
*socially* treated as a person until the funeral. The funeral is what
changes the deceased's status from a dead person ("Mr Smith, who has
just died") to an ex-person ("the late Mr Smith"). Nevertheless, *legal*
personhood terminates with death.)
We've never had a first-class player die, at least that we know of.
(We may have processed some under the abandonment rules.) If one did,
we'd probably have to pass a one-off proposal to deregister em promptly.
The last paragraph of R869 deliberately doesn't allow deregistration of
anyone who has been first-class, to avoid problems with potential scams
or screwups that withdraw legal personhood from first-class players.
-zefram
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Protoproposal of a defense of democracy
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Quazie wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Quazie wrote: >>> Proposal 'Another bribe?' AI=2 ii=1 >> >> Been done before. Boring. >> >> -zefram >> > I was just surprised to find that Bribing wasn't illegal, thats all, > so I decided to see what would happen. Well it's classic Nomic prisoners dilemma etc., but I disagree that it's boring, any more than playing Werewolf (that's been played many times before) is boring. In other words, haven't done it for a while so bring it on. By the way, why would "bribing" in proposals be illegal? We're not modeling "free democracy" here, if anything we're modeling a legislature where Points, VPs, etc. are surrogates for actual power and influence; legislative power-trading and deals are a necessary part of a functioning legislature. And since it's a model and not the real thing, we can explicitly "model" dilemmas for fun, why not? On the other hand, we *are* trying to model a "fair" judicial system, so bribery for judges is a different (i.e. more frowned-upon) matter. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Buy Tickets
On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 09:59 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, ais523 wrote: > > BUY TICKET > > Cost: 1VP > > Target: Goethe > > Action: Retract all the filler's votes on the Agoran decision on whether > > to adopt Proposal 5582, vote FOR on that decision, and do not retract > > that vote during the that decision's voting period > > I will vote as indicated for 1VP but "someone else" (not me personally) > could retract and re-vote. I will vote and forbid (e.g. retract the > pledge, as is allowed by me) anyone else from voting for me, for 2VP. > > -Goethe I'm willing to bear the risk of being outbid on this. (It would still cost 2VP for someone else to retract and revote on your behalf, right?) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Proto Proposals galore!
2008/6/30 Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>Proposal 'Homo sapiens' AI=3 ii=0 >> >> We're not speciesist here. We have precedent for a blob of (biological) >> mauve goo being a player. >> >> Also, you spelled the binomial name correctly in the title but not in >> the body of the proposal. The specific epithet is never capitalised. > > This is just to ensure that dead humans can be considered people if > they need to be. > What about dead blobs of mauve goo? ehird
DIS: Re: BUS: Buy Tickets
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 10:52 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > BUY TICKET > Cost: 1VP > Target: BobTHJ > Action: Retract all the filler's votes on the Agoran decision on whether > to adopt Proposal 5582, vote FOR on that decision, and do not retract > that vote during the that decision's voting period > I decline, though I have an equivalent Sell ticket for 3VP. Would you care to fill that? BobTHJ
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Protoproposal of a defense of democracy
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Quazie wrote: >>Proposal 'Another bribe?' AI=2 ii=1 > > Been done before. Boring. > > -zefram > I was just surprised to find that Bribing wasn't illegal, thats all, so I decided to see what would happen.
DIS: Re: BUS: Buy Tickets
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, ais523 wrote: > BUY TICKET > Cost: 1VP > Target: Goethe > Action: Retract all the filler's votes on the Agoran decision on whether > to adopt Proposal 5582, vote FOR on that decision, and do not retract > that vote during the that decision's voting period I will vote as indicated for 1VP but "someone else" (not me personally) could retract and re-vote. I will vote and forbid (e.g. retract the pledge, as is allowed by me) anyone else from voting for me, for 2VP. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Proto Proposals galore!
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 9:53 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Quazie wrote: >>Proposal - 'Capitol 1' - AI = 1, II=0 > > We're moving away from Capitalising Important Words. I'd favour > lowercasing some of the existing capitalised words. > I'll attempt to remove the capitols instead. >>Proposal 'Excess proposals' AI=2 ii = 1 > ... >>week may be deemed an Excess Proposal by the Promotor. An Excess > > Should be "... may be removed from the proposal pool by the promotor > by announcement.". Specify mechanism, and avoid deeming. > Noted >>Proposal 'Homo sapiens' AI=3 ii=0 > > We're not speciesist here. We have precedent for a blob of (biological) > mauve goo being a player. > > Also, you spelled the binomial name correctly in the title but not in > the body of the proposal. The specific epithet is never capitalised. This is just to ensure that dead humans can be considered people if they need to be.
Re: DIS: BUS: Filling tickets
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, ais523 wrote: > Goethe, I've noticed a problem with Vote Goethe; it seems to require an > expenditure of 2VP to cause you to vote on a proposal you've already > voted on of your own accord. Was this deliberate? Yep! But you may negotiate that with me if you wish... -Goethe
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Protoproposal of a defense of democracy
Quazie wrote: >Proposal 'Another bribe?' AI=2 ii=1 Been done before. Boring. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I support..
NttPF. On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 10:40 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 12:19 -0400, Sgeo wrote: >> I support ais523 making Proposal 5582 Democratic. > With support from Sgeo and from Quazie (which is 2 support), I make the > Agoran Decision on whether to adopt proposal 5582 Democratic. > -- > ais523 >
Re: DIS: Re: Re: BUS: I thought Agora's Birthday was today...
On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 10:50 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Heh, I hope that comes up FALSE too, it would cause a massive gamestate > > recalculation based on unknown data due to all the assets that are > > restricted to people (there must be some), and the precedent that > > non-persons cannot be parties to contracts. > > All the rule-defined assets are restricted to players. VPs and chits > are unrestricted. Crops and lands are restricted to farmers. None > are specifically restricted to persons. > > Game custom is that players who cease to be persons remain players. > That's why the last sentence in R869 is necessary. > > My recollection is that the precedent went the other way: non-persons > can be parties to contracts, but they cannot become parties to > contracts. Do you remember which CFJ it was? It doesn't have an > annotation in the FLR. > > -root Well, consider all the criminal CFJs filed against humans who weren't online at the time, and therefore potentially weren't people. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Proto Proposals galore!
Quazie wrote: >Proposal - 'Capitol 1' - AI = 1, II=0 We're moving away from Capitalising Important Words. I'd favour lowercasing some of the existing capitalised words. >Proposal 'Non-newbies deserve Ribbons' AI =2 ii = 1 I think white ribbons should not be available to new players, only to mentors. But this is the other way to equalise their availability. >Proposal 'Excess proposals' AI=2 ii = 1 ... >week may be deemed an Excess Proposal by the Promotor. An Excess Should be "... may be removed from the proposal pool by the promotor by announcement.". Specify mechanism, and avoid deeming. >Proposal 'Homo sapiens' AI=3 ii=0 We're not speciesist here. We have precedent for a blob of (biological) mauve goo being a player. Also, you spelled the binomial name correctly in the title but not in the body of the proposal. The specific epithet is never capitalised. -zefram
DIS: BUS: Filling tickets
Goethe, I've noticed a problem with Vote Goethe; it seems to require an expenditure of 2VP to cause you to vote on a proposal you've already voted on of your own accord. Was this deliberate? -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: Re: BUS: I thought Agora's Birthday was today...
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Heh, I hope that comes up FALSE too, it would cause a massive gamestate > recalculation based on unknown data due to all the assets that are > restricted to people (there must be some), and the precedent that > non-persons cannot be parties to contracts. All the rule-defined assets are restricted to players. VPs and chits are unrestricted. Crops and lands are restricted to farmers. None are specifically restricted to persons. Game custom is that players who cease to be persons remain players. That's why the last sentence in R869 is necessary. My recollection is that the precedent went the other way: non-persons can be parties to contracts, but they cannot become parties to contracts. Do you remember which CFJ it was? It doesn't have an annotation in the FLR. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: I support..
On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 12:19 -0400, Sgeo wrote: > I support ais523 making Proposal 5582 Democratic. With support from Sgeo and from Quazie (which is 2 support), I make the Agoran Decision on whether to adopt proposal 5582 Democratic. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Werewolves update
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 2:09 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> See who fears information getting out. I propose to lynch Pavitra. >>> >>> -zefram >>> >> >> I second this, support this, whatever the proper wording is. >> >> Pavitra is just as eager to lynch ehird. Also, I get to save my own, >> townsperson, behind. > > Right, then I need votes from root, Zefram, ehird, comex, and Quazie. Wait, isn't there supposed to be a two-day discussion period first? Also, does it make a difference that neither the nomination nor the second were to the PF? The contract uses the phrase "by announcement" without redefining it... -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Hello, world
BobTHJ wrote: > If the notary were to attempt to terminate the equation of CFJ 1927 I > would not object. Without objection, I intend to terminate the equation of CFJ 1927. -- Notary ais523, who can take a hint
DIS: Re: BUS: I support..
2008/6/30 Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I support ais523 making Proposal 5582 Democratic. > AWESOME
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5577-5584
>5577 O1 1comex I don't deserve Scamster! AGAINSTx2 >5578 O1 1.5 Murphy Easier cleanup of one-off pledges FORx2 >5579 D0 3Quazie Race the Hare. FOR >5580 D1 3SgeoHolidays are sacred FOR >5581 D0 2SgeoRibbon Clarification AGAINST (Is it uncommon for people to change their mind and vote against their own proposals?) >5582 O0 1ais523 another probably unsuccessful attempt at... FORx4 >5583 O1 1ais523 Right to Vanish AGAINSTx4 (I want to see a way to prevent being obligated to vanish) >5584 D1 2ais523 It wasn't that interesting anyway FOR (but I want to see replacements for those notes)
Re: DIS: Re: Re: BUS: I thought Agora's Birthday was today...
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Zefram wrote: > Alexander Smith wrote: >> Well, in that case, I publically state that I did not have Internet access >> during Agora's Birthday. This prevented me from participating in the fora > So your personal circumstances have abridged your R101 right. How naughty > of them. Of course, that's not a binding agreement or interpretation > of Agoran law, so R101 does not forbid it from abridging your rights. You could have participated by delegating the authority to someone else (we used to do that on a regular basis) or by using RFC1149 directed at a fellow player authorized to send it on. Many, many such reasonable methods are provided, so you were not limited any more so than when I use a borrowed computer that happens to have a less-preferred browser for webmail. That aside, I hope someone uses this to finally define "participate" in the sense of the fora. The dictionary definition is so broad and non- specific as to require context to make any sense. For me, the definition is strict and limited to the ability to send messages via (not to) the fora, and receive from. This specifically means we can't pass laws making the distributor ban players, and the distributor can't do it themselves, but it doesn't mean that action or inactions of message-sending are free from legal consequences. -Goethe
DIS: Re: Re: BUS: I thought Agora's Birthday was today...
On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 10:14 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > I CFJ on the following statement: "ais523 was a person on Agora's birthday." > > Argument against: By eir own admission, e was not capable of > communicating in English via email during Agora's birthday. > > --Wooble Heh, I hope that comes up FALSE too, it would cause a massive gamestate recalculation based on unknown data due to all the assets that are restricted to people (there must be some), and the precedent that non-persons cannot be parties to contracts. There are a huge number of occasions in the past where I couldn't communicate in English via email too, and unfortunately I haven't kept track of them, so this would lead us to a hugely unknown gamestate. (Do none of you lot ever sleep either? Maybe all of us have been non-persons at some point. Oh, and if this does lead to a massive gamestate recalculation, I suggest fixing it by proposal, if still possible. (This also just reiterates to me that we need some form of my emergency exit proposal; would someone care to proto or propose a fixed version? Was it just the II people didn't like?) -- ais523
DIS: RE: Re: Re: BUS: I thought Agora's Birthday was today...
Zefram wrote: > So your personal circumstances have abridged your R101 right. How naughty > of them. Of course, that's not a binding agreement or interpretation > of Agoran law, so R101 does not forbid it from abridging your rights. No, Rule 2199's abridged my R101 right, by not allowing me sufficient time in which to participate in the fora. -- ais523 <>
DIS: Re: Re: BUS: I thought Agora's Birthday was today...
Alexander Smith wrote: >Well, in that case, I publically state that I did not have Internet access >during Agora's Birthday. This prevented me from participating in the fora So your personal circumstances have abridged your R101 right. How naughty of them. Of course, that's not a binding agreement or interpretation of Agoran law, so R101 does not forbid it from abridging your rights. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: I thought Agora's Birthday was today...
Alexander Smith wrote: >Happy Birthday, Agora! Late. >Doesn't +1200 push it from midday on the 30th to midday on the 1st? The +12:00 means that it occurs 12 hours earlier than that date occurs in UTC. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Werewolves update
Quazie wrote: > On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 11:41 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Ben Caplan wrote: >>> This strikes me as not within the spirit of the game of Werewolf. Wolves >>> need >>> to be able to lie with impunity. >> See who fears information getting out. I propose to lynch Pavitra. >> >> -zefram >> > > I second this, support this, whatever the proper wording is. > > Pavitra is just as eager to lynch ehird. Also, I get to save my own, > townsperson, behind. Right, then I need votes from root, Zefram, ehird, comex, and Quazie.
