Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Player Registration
2008/9/10 Dvorak Herring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Been looking for something like this ever since summer camp, we had a > similar "game". I've also seen alot of this Nomic around. > > -- > Dvorak Herring > A suggestion, since this trips up most people: Most of the gameplay happens in contests/contracts etc, not in the rules. You can view them at http://agora.eso-std.org/notary-report Have fun :)
DIS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5693-5695
2008/9/9 The PerlNomic Partnership <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE > 5693 D 1 2.0 Goethe Speaker's Choice FOR > 5694 D 1 2.0 rootMinistering the Speaker AGAINST > 5695 D 1 3.0 comex Undemocracy PRESENT
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Renewal
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:06 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > See CFJ 2077. Ceasing to be a player doesn't cause you to stop being a party to any contract that's not restricted to players, and for those contracts your announcement would be insufficient to become a party again because you said you agree to every contract you're already a party to, not to those you were previously a party to.
DIS: Re: BUS: Registration
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) wrote: > I register myself for Agora using the nickname "Sir Toby". Hey, welcome back! -Goethe.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration
2008/9/10 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) wrote: >> I register myself for Agora using the nickname "Sir Toby". > > Hey, welcome back! -Goethe. We've had quite an activity spurt recently. And B had one a few weeks back. A new era of nomic activity? Nah.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: > 2008/9/10 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) wrote: >>> I register myself for Agora using the nickname "Sir Toby". >> >> Hey, welcome back! -Goethe. > > We've had quite an activity spurt recently. And B had one a few > weeks back. > > A new era of nomic activity? Traditional September uptick? -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We've had quite an activity spurt recently. And B had one a few > weeks back. ...when I woke people up by proposing B become a Protectorate. It's gone back to being dead again.
DIS: Stepping back
I'm trying to cut back on the amount of busywork I have from Agora. Is there anyone interested in taking over running the AAA, Vote Market, and/or the RBOA? I ask that the Notary please attempt to terminate the Agoran Proposal Awards and the Protection Racket (since neither of these have seen much use). I will continue to administrate the PRS, and will continue in my duties as Scorekeepor, Accountor, and Ambassador for the time being. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5693-5695 (and CoE)
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 9:05 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 5695 D 1 3.0 comex Undemocracy > FOR. It's really not as bad as it sounds. One guy gets two votes on > Democratic proposals, which is a nice carrot for the Speaker if e gets > to choose prerogatives, but hardly game-breaking. I don't really mind that, but I have strong objections to reducing the power of R1950. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5693-5695 (and CoE)
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, comex wrote: >> 5695 D 1 3.0 comex Undemocracy > FOR. It's really not as bad as it sounds. One guy gets two votes on > Democratic proposals, which is a nice carrot for the Speaker if e gets > to choose prerogatives, but hardly game-breaking. Considering we used to allow up to 5 votes on democratic proposals, this is minor. But we had a safety "sane" category of 1vote/person just in case. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration
Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) wrote: >> I register myself for Agora using the nickname "Sir Toby". > > Hey, welcome back! -Goethe. Thank you. It is good to be back. Things sure have changed a lot since I was here last. -- Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) PGP public key available from http://pgp.mit.edu/ PGP Key ID: 0x14B456ED
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) wrote: > Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) wrote: >>> I register myself for Agora using the nickname "Sir Toby". >> >> Hey, welcome back! -Goethe. > > Thank you. It is good to be back. Things sure have changed a lot since I > was here last. Well, what are you waiting for? Change things some more! :). -Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: Registration
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:13 AM, Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I register myself for Agora using the nickname "Sir Toby". Welcome back! -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
DIS: Re: BUS: New Cards v0.2
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:12, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Proto-Proposal: a Card Party (new cards v0.2), AI-2: > (root would you accept coauthorship?) > > - > > Create the following Rule, Cards, power 2: > > Cards are any class of assets defined by the Rules to be > cards. For the rules to define a class of assets to be a > card, the Rules must define its Title, its Party, and either > its Exploit or its Position, but not both. Card instances Nitpick: Are these properties of the _class_ or of all such cards in the class or both? It looks like you mean both, which would be nice to clarify... > of the same class are fungible. No two classes of card may > have the same title. Ownership of cards is restricted to > players, contests, and the Deck. > > The Dealor is a high-priority office and the recordkeepor > for cards. The Dealor CAN, by announcement: >* create cards in the possession of the deck; >* destroy cards; >* perform actions on behalf of the Deck; >* transfer cards between any two entities; > however the dealor SHALL only perform these actions as > explicitly permitted by the Rules. > > If a card class is defined as Unique, there is always exactly > one such instance of the class in existence, and it can be > neither created or destroyed. If, despite this rule, the > instance does not exist, or a CFJ determines that its > possession or existence cannot be determined by reasonable > effort, it is instantly created in the Deck with any other > copy being destroyed. > > If a card class is not unique, then any time there are > fewer or more instances of that class in existence than > a quorum on democratic proposals, the Dealor SHALL create > or destroy cards in the Deck to bring the number of SHALL as soon as possible? > instances to that quorum. However, if the rules define > more non-unique cards than there are active players > in the game, the Dealor SHALL chose a number of card > classes in excess of the number of active players and > destroy all instances of those cards. Once per quarter, > e CAN change this choice with 2 Support. Should we secure some changes to card holdings? > Create the following Rule, Card Positions: > > If a card has a Position, and the holder of the card is > a Player, the holder of that card is considered to be the > holder of that position, and have the powers and duties > described by the Rules for that position. The powers and > duties of such a position may not be delegated or deputized > and are only performable/required of the holder of the card, > rules to the contrary nonwithstanding. > > All card classes with a position are Unique. > > > Create the following Rule, Playing Cards, power 2: > > A player CAN play a card in eir possesion with an Exploit, > by announcing that e plays the card, while also announcing > any further information required by the exploit. The card is > transferred to the deck, and if possible, the effects > of the exploit take place. > > If the information is incorrect, or the exploit is ILLEGAL, > IMPOSSIBLE, or otherwise fails, or the card has no exploit, > an attempt made by the player to play a card in eir possession > still transfers the card to the deck. > > > Create the following Rule, Parties, power 2: > > The Party of a card class may be one of Government, Opposition, > or Backbencher. Any player holding a Government card is a > member of Government (in the Governmnent party). Any player Government party. > holding an Opposition card is a member of the Opposition (in > the opposition party). These are not mutually exclusive. A (capital O?) > play of a backbencher card with a target player in the same > party as emself, unless the exploit on the card explicitly > allows this. Sentence fragment. (The exploit of a backbencher card is INEFFECTIVE if its target player is in the same party as the card's player (ed: put some defn in "Playing Cards" for this?)?) > Create the following Rule, Dealing Cards, power 2: > > Whenever the rules indicate that the Dealor SHALL deal a > card to an entity, the Dealor CAN and SHALL, as soon as > possible, transfer a card in the Deck to the entity. The > Dealor SHALL chose the card to be dealt randomly from among > the cards in the deck that are indicated to by the > authorizing Rule be part of or included in the particular > deal. > > As soon as possible after the rules state that a player > Gains a Draw, the Dealor SHALL deal one backbencher card to > each active player. > > At the beginning of each month, each active player gains > a draw. > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Renewal
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 8:29 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:06 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> See CFJ 2077. > > Ceasing to be a player doesn't cause you to stop being a party to any > contract that's not restricted to players, and for those contracts > your announcement would be insufficient to become a party again > because you said you agree to every contract you're already a party > to, not to those you were previously a party to. All true, but let me be more specific: see my arguments on CFJ 2077. --Ivan Hope CXXVII
Re: DIS: Stepping back
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I ask that the Notary please attempt to terminate the Agoran Proposal > Awards and the Protection Racket (since neither of these have seen > much use). I think the Protection Racket could continue to have use. --Ivan Hope CXXVII
Re: DIS: Stepping back
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:03 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I ask that the Notary please attempt to terminate the Agoran Proposal >> Awards and the Protection Racket (since neither of these have seen >> much use). > > I think the Protection Racket could continue to have use. > > --Ivan Hope CXXVII > Well, I don't mind continuing to maintain it (as it doesn't require effort on my part when not in use). BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: New Cards v0.2
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (root would you accept coauthorship?) Without having to do any actual work? Absolutely! > Create the following Rule, Cards, power 2: > > Cards are any class of assets defined by the Rules to be > cards. For the rules to define a class of assets to be a > card, the Rules must define its Title, its Party, and either > its Exploit or its Position, but not both. Card instances > of the same class are fungible. No two classes of card may > have the same title. Ownership of cards is restricted to > players, contests, and the Deck. > > The Dealor is a high-priority office and the recordkeepor > for cards. The Dealor CAN, by announcement: >* create cards in the possession of the deck; >* destroy cards; >* perform actions on behalf of the Deck; >* transfer cards between any two entities; > however the dealor SHALL only perform these actions as > explicitly permitted by the Rules. One thing I'd like to see happen this time is to have contract-defined cards available right from the get-go. Contracts should not share the same Deck and Dealor, however, so these concepts should be generalized. > * Title: Dud > Exploit: You may wish in your own mind that you had a >luckier Draw. Duds never really got very interesting last time. Unless you have a specific idea for using them, I'd prefer to just leave them out. -root
DIS: Proto-Judgement of CFJs 2146-7
[Note: The CotC database incorrectly records the time of my assignment to these cases.] Certainly, the CotC was required to assign ID numbers to CFJs 2146 and 1/2147. So, any Monster CAN assign an ID number 'as if' e held the office of CotC. Game custom is that where an officer fails to perform a duty which might be performed multiple ways (assign one of multiple valid ID numbers), a deputy can make the choice-- without, in fact, even announcing beforehand which choice e intends to make. This is required in order to allow deputies to fulfil offices' obligations in any kind of orderly way. So I proto-judge CFJ 2146 TRUE. If you CAN perform an action "as if" you hold an office, does that mean you CAN perform the action, during which you act as if you hold the office? Or does it just mean that you CAN act as if you hold the office for the purpose of performing the action? Rule 2160, the normal deputisation rule, requires that it be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, other than by deputisation, if e held the office, but it might be (as root contends) that the requirement is redundant. Any player (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a particular office (deputise for that office) if: "as if" means (answers.com) "in the same way that it would be if", or (mw) "as it would be if" or "as one would do if". If the Monster (or player, in this case) *did* hold the office in question, e would be unable to assign the ID number 1 due to Rule 2161 (b). The "as if" limits, not extends, the meaning of the first part. Indeed, I think we would all agree about that if not for Rule 2160 (d), "it would be POSSIBLE...", which confuses the issue. But we need not drastically change the interpretation of a rule, just because not doing so would yield a redundant clasue. With this interpretation, Rules 2160 and 2193 are merely acting as "proxies" for the mechanisms (by announcement, etc.) provided by other rules, and a (fake-)deputised assignment is indeed "such an assignment" from the viewpoint of Rule 2161, and therefore INVALID. I proto-judge CFJ 2147 FALSE. Point of interest: the Monster couldn't have violated the SHALL, even if e had succeeded in assigning the number 1, because I think e (well, ais523) did reasonably believe that selecting any smaller number (than 1!) might be invalid or confusing.
DIS: Re: BUS: blah
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I intend, without 3 Objections, to amend the Agoran Civil Service > contract by replacing its entire text with "This contract immediately > terminates itself." Hm... -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
DIS: Re: BUS: New Player Registration
Welcome Dvorak! Welcome back, Sir Toby! - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Cards v0.2
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > One thing I'd like to see happen this time is to have contract-defined > cards available right from the get-go. Contracts should not share the > same Deck and Dealor, however, so these concepts should be > generalized. Hm, how's this for a generic card description: A Set of Cards is a set of defined currency classes (card types) which are defined by a backing document as being part of a particular Deck defined in the same backing document. A single Card is an instance of one of the classes. The recordkeepor of a Deck, as defined by its backing document, is the recordkeepor for all card classes that are part of that deck. The recordkeepor of a Deck generally CAN perform actions on behalf of that Deck by announcement as allowed by its backing document. To Deal a card from a particular deck to an entity is to select a card from its deck and transfer it to the entity. If the method of selection is not further specified, it is random among all cards currently in the possession of that deck. To Reshuffle a Deck is to return all card instances of a particular deck to the Deck. [Any better generalizations? Any other useful generalizations?] -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Cards v0.2
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >To Reshuffle a Deck is to return all card instances of >a particular deck to the Deck. Deck the halls with boughs of holly... Why not make the backing document define the card types as being part of one Set of Cards?
DIS: Re: BUS: New Cards v0.2
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The Dealor is a high-priority office and the recordkeepor > for cards. The Dealor CAN, by announcement: >* create cards in the possession of the deck; >* destroy cards; >* perform actions on behalf of the Deck; >* transfer cards between any two entities; > however the dealor SHALL only perform these actions as > explicitly permitted by the Rules. Dangerous. If the Dealor is willing to accept punishment for breaking the Rules, e can make lots of partnerships and increase their caste excessively. It would be hard to prevent this from becoming a dictatorship.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Cards v0.2
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, comex wrote: > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The Dealor is a high-priority office and the recordkeepor >> for cards. The Dealor CAN, by announcement: >>* create cards in the possession of the deck; >>* destroy cards; >>* perform actions on behalf of the Deck; >>* transfer cards between any two entities; >> however the dealor SHALL only perform these actions as >> explicitly permitted by the Rules. > > Dangerous. If the Dealor is willing to accept punishment for breaking > the Rules, e can make lots of partnerships and increase their caste > excessively. It would be hard to prevent this from becoming a > dictatorship. You're right. Plays and transfers need to be pragmatic, but creation and destruction doesn't have to be. -G.
Re: DIS: Proto-Judgement of CFJs 2146-7
comex wrote: > [Note: The CotC database incorrectly records the time of my assignment > to these cases.] I'm operating on the assumption that Mad Scientist ais523 successfully assigned you on behalf of the Monster (which is consistent with your proto-judgement of 2146), in which case the timestamps are correct.
HOT Home Business Praised By #1 Radio Morning Show
Find out why this revolutionary has the radio airwaves buzzing. get all the info about what it is, how it works, and how you can become a part of it. The radio interveiw last 20 minutes. This will be the best 20 minutes of your life. Act now and don't miss out on a wonderful opportunity. For more info visit the following website and listen to the audio of the full radio interview. Thanks and have a great day http://www.radio-biz.com/?p0615 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Legitimate Work From Home Opportunites" group. To post to this group, send email to Legitimate-Work-From-Home-Opportunites@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Legitimate-Work-From-Home-Opportunites?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
