DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: No, Mr. Garrison, we cannot get rid of all the Mexicans
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 12:13 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Proposal: No, Mr. Garrison, we cannot get rid of all the Mexicans (AI = 3, please) Amend Rule 2150 (Personhood) by replacing this text: Any biological organism that is capable of communicating by email in English is a person. with this text: Any biological organism that is generally capable of communicating by email in English or a comparable general-purpose language is a person. (English is Agora's lingua franca; non-English speakers will require a translation service to participate in a practical sense.) A non-English speaker with a translation service would thereby be capable of communicating in English, no? -root
DIS: what the cripes
okay, I can't login to the a-b archives with [EMAIL PROTECTED] and i'm not receiving anything from the lists. What happen -- Phill
Re: DIS: what the cripes
2008/9/24 Phil Lister [EMAIL PROTECTED]: okay, I can't login to the a-b archives with [EMAIL PROTECTED] and i'm not receiving anything from the lists. What happen -- Phill ... but I received this. Anyway, my messages got through, but only on phill, not this one :| Kind of anticlimatic :D
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 6:48 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fails. The Promotor is only required to distribute proposals that have been in the pool since the beginning of the week. The Monster doesn't have to wait for an officer to miss a deadline.
DIS: Re: BUS: why wait?
On 24 Sep 2008, at 14:20, Geoffrey Spear wrote: I don't think we owe it to tusho to give em what e wants by holding off on criminal CFJs, or giving em any deference at all. Since he first came across Agora, e's constantly shown a blatant disregard for the rules, and unlike many other scamsters has taken on little responsibility as a mitigating factor. I said hold off because if Phill retroactively sent that message, I never violated that rule.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On 24 Sep 2008, at 14:07, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 6:48 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fails. The Promotor is only required to distribute proposals that have been in the pool since the beginning of the week. The Monster doesn't have to wait for an officer to miss a deadline. The Monster can only deputize for a requirement.
DIS: Re: BUS: why wait?
On 24 Sep 2008, at 15:53, Roger Hicks wrote: I also support, but agree with Murphy regarding a lessened sentence. BobTHJ It's also worth pointing out that I am possibly not a player... (which is why I suggested holding off the criminal CFJs, I wasn't trying to buy time or something.)
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Pragmatic rights and privileges
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: Proposal: Pragmatic rights and privileges (AI = 3, II = 3, please) Amend Rule 101 (Agoran Rights and Privileges) to read: Each person has the right to do the following things; these rights CANNOT be removed or restricted beyond reasonable effort by any interpretation of Agoran law or contract: 1) Perform unregulated actions. I think saying we CANNOT restrict performing unregulated actions strengthens the ISID problem for unregulated actions. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 6:48 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fails. The Promotor is only required to distribute proposals that have been in the pool since the beginning of the week. The Monster doesn't have to wait for an officer to miss a deadline. E has to wait for distribution to become an requirement. It's not a requirement at all until to proposal has been in the pool since the beginning of the week. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Pragmatic rights and privileges
Goethe wrote: On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: Proposal: Pragmatic rights and privileges (AI = 3, II = 3, please) Amend Rule 101 (Agoran Rights and Privileges) to read: Each person has the right to do the following things; these rights CANNOT be removed or restricted beyond reasonable effort by any interpretation of Agoran law or contract: 1) Perform unregulated actions. I think saying we CANNOT restrict performing unregulated actions strengthens the ISID problem for unregulated actions. How about defining enabled rights (e.g. deregistration, judicial action): If no other method of exercising an enabled right exists, then a person CAN exercise it by informing the players generally that e does so. and/or natural rights (e.g. performing unregulated actions): This rule does not grant the ability to exercise a natural right that would not be POSSIBLE even if no Agoran law or contract attempted to restrict it; such ability must be granted by another Agoran law or contract, or else must exist independently of the rules. Similarly for privileges, I suppose.
DIS: Re: BUS: My identity
Which of these was the claim of identity: Phill Phill, a biological organism capable of communicating by email in English and therefore a first-class person (rule 2150) Phill, a biological organism capable of communicating by email in English and therefore a first-class person (rule 2150) who has never been a player before All three. Anyway: if the first ratified, then Phill isn't a person or whatever, e (if e even applies) just sent message #1 (and message #2 was probably sent by me since it hasn't ratified yet). Phill is a person, no ratification necessary, unless you're claiming that either you're not Phill or you're not a person. If the second ratified, then Phill is a first-class player. Eep. I just created a first-class player out of _nothingness_. If the third ratified, same. Whether an entity is a first-class person is not ratifiable. There is no gamestate that could be changed (apart, I suppose, from the text of R2150) that would effect such a ratification. 1. my name changed to Phill 2. my name... also changed to Phill I'm not sure what you mean the difference between these to be. In any case, yes, I believe Phill is now an alias for you, just as Annabel was once an alias for Maud. 3. my name changed to Phill *and it ratifies that I was never a player* Possible. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Pragmatic rights and privileges
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: How about defining enabled rights (e.g. deregistration, judicial action): and/or natural rights (e.g. performing unregulated actions): I like this distinction. Where would you put speech (e.g. fora). -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: My identity
On 24 Sep 2008, at 17:37, Ian Kelly wrote: Which of these was the claim of identity: Phill Phill, a biological organism capable of communicating by email in English and therefore a first-class person (rule 2150) Phill, a biological organism capable of communicating by email in English and therefore a first-class person (rule 2150) who has never been a player before All three. I thought that, but nobody else did, apparently. Anyway: if the first ratified, then Phill isn't a person or whatever, e (if e even applies) just sent message #1 (and message #2 was probably sent by me since it hasn't ratified yet). Phill is a person, no ratification necessary, unless you're claiming that either you're not Phill or you're not a person. I am arguing that I am not Phill, yes, that it ratified as Phill, who didn't previously exist. I'm not convinced that IS what happened, but that's kind of what I'm _hoping_, so to speak. If the second ratified, then Phill is a first-class player. Eep. I just created a first-class player out of _nothingness_. If the third ratified, same. Whether an entity is a first-class person is not ratifiable. There is no gamestate that could be changed (apart, I suppose, from the text of R2150) that would effect such a ratification. Well, yes, I'm treating the biologicalness ratifying as triggering first-classness due to meeting the criteria. 1. my name changed to Phill 2. my name... also changed to Phill I'm not sure what you mean the difference between these to be. In any case, yes, I believe Phill is now an alias for you, just as Annabel was once an alias for Maud. I was implying no difference. Also, yes, I think it might be likely that that is true, although I hope it is not. 3. my name changed to Phill *and it ratifies that I was never a player* Possible. ais523 just calculated the gamestate without me. Ratification makes it very similar, apparently. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: My identity
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Phill is a person, no ratification necessary, unless you're claiming that either you're not Phill or you're not a person. I am arguing that I am not Phill, yes, that it ratified as Phill, who didn't previously exist. I'm not convinced that IS what happened, but that's kind of what I'm _hoping_, so to speak. No, you established Phill as an alias for yourself by sending the message and signing it that. When it ratified, it didn't spring Phill into existence. It just ratified that the message was sent by you. Whether an entity is a first-class person is not ratifiable. There is no gamestate that could be changed (apart, I suppose, from the text of R2150) that would effect such a ratification. Well, yes, I'm treating the biologicalness ratifying as triggering first-classness due to meeting the criteria. Whether an entity is biological is similarly not ratifiable, for the same reason. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: My identity
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Phill is a person, no ratification necessary, unless you're claiming that either you're not Phill or you're not a person. I am arguing that I am not Phill, yes, that it ratified as Phill, who didn't previously exist. I'm not convinced that IS what happened, but that's kind of what I'm _hoping_, so to speak. No, you established Phill as an alias for yourself by sending the message and signing it that. When it ratified, it didn't spring Phill into existence. It just ratified that the message was sent by you. Preferred alternative: It ratified that: 1. The message was sent by Phill 2. We now know that Phill is a non-person. 3. Therefore the entity who sent the message is a non-person. 4. The entity Elliot Hird sent the message. 5. Therefore we have ratified that Elliot Hird is a non-person. 5. Therefore Elliot Hird cannot be (and can't ever again be) a first-class player. What bribe do I need to make to have these CFJs assigned to me, Murphy? -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: My identity
On 24 Sep 2008, at 18:07, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Phill is a person, no ratification necessary, unless you're claiming that either you're not Phill or you're not a person. I am arguing that I am not Phill, yes, that it ratified as Phill, who didn't previously exist. I'm not convinced that IS what happened, but that's kind of what I'm _hoping_, so to speak. No, you established Phill as an alias for yourself by sending the message and signing it that. When it ratified, it didn't spring Phill into existence. It just ratified that the message was sent by you. Preferred alternative: It ratified that: An alternative isn't more viable just because you prefer it. 1. The message was sent by Phill 2. We now know that Phill is a non-person. 3. Therefore the entity who sent the message is a non-person. 4. The entity Elliot Hird sent the message. 5. Therefore we have ratified that Elliot Hird is a non-person. 5. Therefore Elliot Hird cannot be (and can't ever again be) a first-class player. This doesn't work because you have two step fives. What bribe do I need to make to have these CFJs assigned to me, Murphy? -Goethe A bribe more than I need to make to get the judgements appealed.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: My identity
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 10:07 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Phill is a person, no ratification necessary, unless you're claiming that either you're not Phill or you're not a person. I am arguing that I am not Phill, yes, that it ratified as Phill, who didn't previously exist. I'm not convinced that IS what happened, but that's kind of what I'm _hoping_, so to speak. No, you established Phill as an alias for yourself by sending the message and signing it that. When it ratified, it didn't spring Phill into existence. It just ratified that the message was sent by you. Preferred alternative: It ratified that: 1. The message was sent by Phill 2. We now know that Phill is a non-person. 3. Therefore the entity who sent the message is a non-person. 4. The entity Elliot Hird sent the message. 5. Therefore we have ratified that Elliot Hird is a non-person. 5. Therefore Elliot Hird cannot be (and can't ever again be) a first-class player. What bribe do I need to make to have these CFJs assigned to me, Murphy? -Goethe I doubt that that would get through appeals. Also, probably with Monster deputisation there are two people you'd have to bribe, nowadays. -- ais523
Re: DIS: what the cripes
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Phil Lister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: okay, I can't login to the a-b archives with [EMAIL PROTECTED] and i'm not receiving anything from the lists. Are you still subscribed? -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: My identity
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Preferred alternative: It ratified that: 1. The message was sent by Phill 2. We now know that Phill is a non-person. 3. Therefore the entity who sent the message is a non-person. 4. The entity Elliot Hird sent the message. 5. Therefore we have ratified that Elliot Hird is a non-person. 5. Therefore Elliot Hird cannot be (and can't ever again be) a first-class player. I'm afraid that your premises 1, 2, and 4 are in conflict. -root
Re: DIS: what the cripes
On 24 Sep 2008, at 18:23, Taral wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Phil Lister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: okay, I can't login to the a-b archives with [EMAIL PROTECTED] and i'm not receiving anything from the lists. Are you still subscribed? Yah. 'Sall working now.
DIS: Re: BUS: One Gamestate
ais523 wrote:
I submit the following proposal (AI=3, II=1, Title=Combining the
Gamestates):
Ow. We really should just be able to do this:
Ratify the following document: {{{ tusho was a player
during time periods. }}}
and have it clearly generate knock-on effects similar to those listed
in your proposal.
Or, using the (albeit controversial) form that I think I used to
patch over the Annabel crisis, among other occasions:
Upon the adoption of this proposal, the gamestate becomes
what it would have been if tusho had been a player during
time periods.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: One Gamestate
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 10:57 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
ais523 wrote:
I submit the following proposal (AI=3, II=1, Title=Combining the
Gamestates):
Ow. We really should just be able to do this:
Ratify the following document: {{{ tusho was a player
during time periods. }}}
and have it clearly generate knock-on effects similar to those listed
in your proposal.
Or, using the (albeit controversial) form that I think I used to
patch over the Annabel crisis, among other occasions:
Upon the adoption of this proposal, the gamestate becomes
what it would have been if tusho had been a player during
time periods.
Actually, I was surprised at how short it was. Our ratification is
working well; probably the other things that need to self-ratify are
these:
- the existence of a CFJ
- the success of a deputised action
- the verdict of a CFJ
Apart from that, everything turned out fine.
--
ais523
Re: ?spam? Re: DIS: Re: BUS: One Gamestate
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 19:08 +0100, ais523 wrote:
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 10:57 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
ais523 wrote:
I submit the following proposal (AI=3, II=1, Title=Combining the
Gamestates):
Ow. We really should just be able to do this:
Ratify the following document: {{{ tusho was a player
during time periods. }}}
and have it clearly generate knock-on effects similar to those listed
in your proposal.
Or, using the (albeit controversial) form that I think I used to
patch over the Annabel crisis, among other occasions:
Upon the adoption of this proposal, the gamestate becomes
what it would have been if tusho had been a player during
time periods.
Actually, I was surprised at how short it was. Our ratification is
working well; probably the other things that need to self-ratify are
these:
- the existence of a CFJ
- the success of a deputised action
- the verdict of a CFJ
Apart from that, everything turned out fine.
On the other hand, the claim of identity made by a message is something
that probably does /not/ need to self-ratify; instead, it should just be
restricted to which person sent the message. That would prevent stupid
tricks like Phill from damaging the gamestate (although not an Annabel
crisis).
Actually, probably the IADoP's report should self-ratify; that /would/
stop an Annabel crisis AFAICT.
--
ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: One Gamestate
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 12:16 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 12:08 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - the existence of a CFJ - the success of a deputised action - the verdict of a CFJ Why deputised actions? They're no different in this regard than any other official action. Well, not the actual success of the action, but the fact that the deputisation was legal. One of the problems was that tusho deputised to do something, but later turned out to not have been a player. Alternatively, we could allow arbitrary persons to deputise, subject to the usual restrictions, rather than restricting it to players; I don't see any security flaw with that. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: My identity
On Sep 24, 2008, at 12:56 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whether an entity is biological is similarly not ratifiable, for the same reason. -root Goethe's arguments in CFJ 2165 would disagree with you.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: My identity
On 24 Sep 2008, at 19:27, comex wrote: Goethe's arguments in CFJ 2165 would disagree with you. Oh the irony.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: One Gamestate
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 2:08 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, I was surprised at how short it was. Our ratification is working well; probably the other things that need to self-ratify are these: - the existence of a CFJ - the success of a deputised action - the verdict of a CFJ Apart from that, everything turned out fine. Still, when some things but not others are ratified, things turn out weirdly. For example, if it ratified that tusho was never a player, and someone initiated a criminal case with eir support, then initiated five other CFJs, the last of which the CotC refused, the criminal case wouldn't have existed and the excess CFJ was in fact valid... still requiring a judge. Not that I'm saying any of that happened, it's just an example.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: My identity
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 12:27 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 24, 2008, at 12:56 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whether an entity is biological is similarly not ratifiable, for the same reason. -root Goethe's arguments in CFJ 2165 would disagree with you. Thanks for pointing that out; I wasn't paying attention to that CFJ. Goethe didn't address the is biological example, but e did address the is wearing a hat example. Eir arguments there were wrong: whether a person is wearing a hat is not (currently) part of the gamestate, so there is no gamestate for such a ratification to change, so such a ratification is impossible. If the rules did somewhere refer to a legal fiction of is wearing a hat (as opposed to a physical truth, such as the current use of is biological by R2150), then Goethe's argument would hold. I'm up in the air as to whether to appeal the judgement. The overall judgement of UNDETERMINED is probably correct. -root
DIS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5700-5706
I will not be casting votes of SELL (2VP); since I'm a Slave, anyone can do that for me, and I think it's a reasonable assumption that if nobody does so, nobody wants it done, so I shouldn't be punished if the votes are never cast. --Ivan Hope CXXVII
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: My identity
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, comex wrote: On Sep 24, 2008, at 12:56 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whether an entity is biological is similarly not ratifiable, for the same reason. -root Goethe's arguments in CFJ 2165 would disagree with you. No they don't. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: My identity
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 12:27 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 24, 2008, at 12:56 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whether an entity is biological is similarly not ratifiable, for the same reason. -root Goethe's arguments in CFJ 2165 would disagree with you. Thanks for pointing that out; I wasn't paying attention to that CFJ. Goethe didn't address the is biological example, but e did address the is wearing a hat example. Eir arguments there were wrong: whether a person is wearing a hat is not (currently) part of the gamestate, so there is no gamestate for such a ratification to change, so such a ratification is impossible. If the rules did somewhere refer to a legal fiction of is wearing a hat (as opposed to a physical truth, such as the current use of is biological by R2150), then Goethe's argument would hold. Um, it asked whether general types of conditions were *in principle* subject to ratification, and I said they were *if* they were tracked for points purposes or something. It was one of those hypothetical types of questions, not a specific one. Why is that wrong? I'm up in the air as to whether to appeal the judgement. The overall judgement of UNDETERMINED is probably correct. As is often the case for overly-hypothetical statements where you need more specifics to figure out subcases. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: My identity
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 12:27 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 24, 2008, at 12:56 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whether an entity is biological is similarly not ratifiable, for the same reason. Goethe's arguments in CFJ 2165 would disagree with you. The actual question is whether ratifying Goethe has 5 points ratifies the fact that Goethe exists and is an entity capable of having points. (which if allowed would set up a set of inferences that ratified em to be a first-class person). That was an example of the second type in my CFJ and I specifically argued that it was *not* ratifiable. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: My identity
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Um, it asked whether general types of conditions were *in principle* subject to ratification, and I said they were *if* they were tracked for points purposes or something. It was one of those hypothetical types of questions, not a specific one. Why is that wrong? My bad, I didn't realize you were approaching the specific example of is wearing a hat as a hypothetical. -root
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5700-5706
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 1:37 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 15:31 -0400, ihope wrote: I will not be casting votes of SELL (2VP); since I'm a Slave, anyone can do that for me, and I think it's a reasonable assumption that if nobody does so, nobody wants it done, so I shouldn't be punished if the votes are never cast. --Ivan Hope CXXVII Well, I act on behalf of Ivan Hope CXXVII to cast SELL (2VP) on proposal 5707. Unless you plan on buying it, I wish you wouldn't. That vote is now going to count toward quorum, regardless of whether anyone ends up directing it or not. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA Change
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In Section 7 remove:
{{
The owner of a Land MAY change its name by announcement.
}}
Perhaps someone will volunteer to keep an informal record of Land names?
-root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Reformed Bank of Agora report
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TOTAL 7578 Chits The total value of the bank's assets is 9151 chits, so the bank is currently showing a profit of 1573 chits. What do we want to do with that profit? -root Fund sub-prime mortgages? BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Reformed Bank of Agora report
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 15:08 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TOTAL 7578 Chits The total value of the bank's assets is 9151 chits, so the bank is currently showing a profit of 1573 chits. What do we want to do with that profit? -root Fund sub-prime mortgages? Buy yourself a couple of points of caste (by trading for note credits), then use it for voting. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Happiness in Slavery
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 22:13 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote: I transfer all my VP to ais523. Why the VP? Trying to bribe me? -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Happiness in Slavery
On 24 Sep 2008, at 22:18, ais523 wrote: On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 22:13 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote: I transfer all my VP to ais523. Why the VP? Trying to bribe me? -- ais523 You bet.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: My identity
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Um, it asked whether general types of conditions were *in principle* subject to ratification, and I said they were *if* they were tracked for points purposes or something. It was one of those hypothetical types of questions, not a specific one. Why is that wrong? My bad, I didn't realize you were approaching the specific example of is wearing a hat as a hypothetical. Neither did I, in the sense that why should it change whether a real-life attribute can be ratified, just because the (real life status of the!) attribute is tracked for points purposes?
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA Change
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
{{
The owner of a Land MAY change its name by announcement.
}}
Would you be ok with allowing farmers to specify the name for a land
that will be created when making the announcement that would cause the
land to be created, but making the names permanent once the land has
been created?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: My identity
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, comex wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Um, it asked whether general types of conditions were *in principle* subject to ratification, and I said they were *if* they were tracked for points purposes or something. It was one of those hypothetical types of questions, not a specific one. Why is that wrong? My bad, I didn't realize you were approaching the specific example of is wearing a hat as a hypothetical. Neither did I, in the sense that why should it change whether a real-life attribute can be ratified, just because the (real life status of the!) attribute is tracked for points purposes? If we can ratify an in-game fiction (Goethe has 5 points, even though after ratification we find evidence that e shouldn't have) we can ratify an out-of-game fiction (Goethe was wearing a hat, even though...) if we happen to have a recordkeepor for hat-wearing. That was the first type of example. It's still a direct ratification of something that's (hypothetically) tracked. The second type of example you gave (is a particular person) is a backwards ratification, and the question was whether ratifying Goethe has 5 points by the recordkeepor for points indirectly ratifies the existence of Goethe as a person. I opined that it doesn't. What you really did was lump two very different types of ratification in your examples so I had to give a split decision. -Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA Change
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Append to Section 16:
{{
At the end of any week in which one or more Players won Agora by
accumulating points the Federal Subsidy is decreased by 3.
}}
What about cutting it in half instead of decreasing it?
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA Change
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In Section 7 remove:
{{
The owner of a Land MAY change its name by announcement.
}}
If you're going to do this, you may as well remove land names entirely
and make lands of the same type/value fungible.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: My identity
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If we can ratify an in-game fiction (Goethe has 5 points, even though after ratification we find evidence that e shouldn't have) we can ratify an out-of-game fiction (Goethe was wearing a hat, even though...) if we happen to have a recordkeepor for hat-wearing. If we have a recordkeepor for hat-wearing, then it's not out-of-game. The CFJ statement didn't say anything about in-game versus out-of-game. My bad, I didn't mean 'in-game' vs 'out-of-game' I meant 'physical and exists if the game doesn't exist' versus 'wholly created by the game.' And for ratification, I don't see a distinction. Ratification is *all* about legal fictions, whether about physical or virtual properties. We can ratify that you had 10 points all we want, but if you reconstruct the paper trail and find that you didn't, then you didn't. It's a past reality of the virtual properties. If you like, given that virtual properties are created by email messages, electrons, etc. they are also physical. For example, I wrote in CFJ 1364: We have an Agoran custom of treating Property as tangible goods, rather than as abstact concepts. For example, we disallow destroying negative properties to create positive properties. It is good to be reminded of this tangibility, as the virtual nature of these tangible goods makes it tempting to explore abstract but tangibly impossible operations. Ratification *creates a legal fiction* but doesn't change the past, whether or not that legal fiction is about physical or virtual things doesn't matter. -Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA: Subsidy
I think I have this right: I mill 8 * 5 = 7. I mill 8 - 8 = 0. I harvest 5704, a Democratic proposal, for 4 points. I harvest 5705, a Democratic proposal, for 4 points. I mill 8 / 4 = 2. I deposit a 2 crop in the RBoA. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: My identity
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ratification *creates a legal fiction* but doesn't change the past, whether or not that legal fiction is about physical or virtual things doesn't matter. So why can't it be about the legal fiction of whether something is a biological person?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: My identity
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ratification *creates a legal fiction* but doesn't change the past, whether or not that legal fiction is about physical or virtual things doesn't matter. Right, it creates the legal fiction that the current gamestate is what it would be, had the ratified document been completely true and accurate at the time it was published. But for physical things, what does this mean? Suppose we have a rule that only players wearing hats may vote, and that I -- while not wearing a hat -- announce at 10:00 PM that I *am* wearing a hat, and that I then -- still not wearing a hat -- attempt to vote at 10:05 PM. Suppose further that the hat-wearing announcement goes on to ratify, and the vote results do not. What has been ratified in this instance is that I was wearing a hat at 10:00 PM. The ratification has nothing to do with whether I was wearing a hat at 10:05 PM, so the vote should be unsuccessful despite the ratification. However, this would not be the case if the wearing of hats were a legal fiction, the state of which is simply assumed to be continuous. -root
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5700-5706
root wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 1:37 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 15:31 -0400, ihope wrote: I will not be casting votes of SELL (2VP); since I'm a Slave, anyone can do that for me, and I think it's a reasonable assumption that if nobody does so, nobody wants it done, so I shouldn't be punished if the votes are never cast. --Ivan Hope CXXVII Well, I act on behalf of Ivan Hope CXXVII to cast SELL (2VP) on proposal 5707. Unless you plan on buying it, I wish you wouldn't. That vote is now going to count toward quorum, regardless of whether anyone ends up directing it or not. Huh? *re-reads Vote Market contract* Oh dear, I've missed recording any number of such votes that went unsold, though (a) it had little/no substantive effect and (b) most of those results have ratified by now. While I'm thinking of it, I also noticed over the weekend that I'd missed recording three gains of a B note (two of them modulated) for II=2 proposals. I've fixed the database, and the next Conductor's report will reflect the fix.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA: Subsidy
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 16:17, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 24, 2008, at 7:14 PM, Benjamin Schultz wrote: I think I have this right: Almost. PF. I mill 8 * 5 = 7. I mill 8 - 8 = 0. The RBoA would've happily exchanged an 8 crop for a 0 crop and some chits... -woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: My identity
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What has been ratified in this instance is that I was wearing a hat at 10:00 PM. The ratification has nothing to do with whether I was wearing a hat at 10:05 PM, so the vote should be unsuccessful despite the ratification. However, this would not be the case if the wearing of hats were a legal fiction, the state of which is simply assumed to be continuous. Actually, you're extending my analogy too far, and I agree with you wholly. If we ratify a hat-wearing report for a past time, it works, but ratifying it for that past instant doesn't hold it true for the present and future. E.G. if the Rules say anyone wears a hat any time on July 14th gets a French Flag then you could ratify whether someone wore a hat on July 14th. But ratifying that you wore it on that day doesn't imply that you are still wearing it, or were continuously wearing it. This is also the answer to comex's question of why can't we ratify biological personhood. If comex's CFJ had asked if we could ratify continuous real physical properties, I would have said absolutely false, since biological personhood is a continuous property, even if you happen to ratify it for an instant that's meaningless, it instantly becomes false. I think we're in agreement, actually, (comex, you and myself) just the victim of my imperfectly trying to parse a not-quite-perfectly written CFJ statement. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA Change
On Wednesday 24 September 2008 03:41:50 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In Section 7 remove:
{{
The owner of a Land MAY change its name by announcement.
}}
Perhaps someone will volunteer to keep an informal record of Land
names?
(I assume the problem is that renaming adds 50% to the number of
messages every time subsidization rolls around.)
I like named lands; how would it be if the SoA could name lands at
creation, and farmers can request specific names in advance?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA Change
On Thursday 25 September 2008 12:29:59 am I wrote: redundant Whoops, BobTHJ got to it first.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA Change
On Thursday 25 September 2008 12:31:43 am you wrote: On Thursday 25 September 2008 12:29:59 am I wrote: redundant Whoops, BobTHJ got to it first. Nope, it was Wooble. I AM A COMPLETE IDIOT
DIS: Re: BUS: why wait?
On Wednesday 24 September 2008 08:20:35 am Geoffrey Spear wrote: I recommend a sentence of EXILE with a tariff of 180 days. R1504 prescribes the middle of the tariff range... for severe rule breaches amounting to a breach of trust. The middle of the tariff range in this case is 90 days. Is what e did really *significantly more* severe than a severe rule breach[] amounting to a breach of trust?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: why wait?
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 22:37, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 24 September 2008 08:20:35 am Geoffrey Spear wrote: I recommend a sentence of EXILE with a tariff of 180 days. R1504 prescribes the middle of the tariff range... for severe rule breaches amounting to a breach of trust. The middle of the tariff range in this case is 90 days. Is what e did really *significantly more* severe than a severe rule breach[] amounting to a breach of trust? Well, from the rest of Wooble's words: [...] Since he first came across Agora, e's constantly shown a blatant disregard for the rules, and unlike many other scamsters has taken on little responsibility as a mitigating factor. I take it that e alleges that tusho's history makes a longer tariff warranted compared to some isolated violation that nevertheless amounted to a severe breach of trust. Whether this is a good argument, any judge assigning a sentence will need to determine. -woggle
