Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Tweak veracity

[Ed Murphy]

Goethe wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> comex wrote:
>>
>>> (Then again, rarely do we encounter a paradox as beautiful
>>> as that one.)
>> I forget which of us actually came up with the idea.
> 
> Naw, that one was all you from what I remember.
> 
> You assigned it to me out of mischief, perhaps.  I posted this:
> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2006-December/007370.html
> 
> Then you came up with the actual method:
> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2006-December/007373.html
> 
> Sherlock volunteered and there you go.

According to this message:
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2006-December/007469.html
the assignment to you was unambiguously legal (I hadn't yet attempted
to carry out my part of the Writ of FAGE process).

I would still support awarding Medalist to you and Sherlock, as the
elegance of the win depended on each of you coming up with a plausible
argument for the interpretation under which you wouldn't be assigned.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Tweak veracity

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, comex wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:16 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> No, it doesn't.  If the outside case is judged true, it implies that A
>>> is the judge of X, and therefore A judged X incorrectly while B judged
>>> it correctly (but invalidly).  
>
> And yet while the Rules now more explicitly spell out that judgements
> have no effect on the game, that was already game custom when that
> clarification was introduced. 

Actually, I can date this change in custom.  It was Zefram's arrival
early 2007 (right after the paradox).  E argued fairly strongly for
the new way and carried the day.  Then e made it explicit in the big 
judicial reform.

Ironically, the discussion/argument was triggered when we started deeming 
each other pineapples, leading to the "contracts can be persons" 
judgement which, e assumed, did in fact codify things (even if it was 
"wrong" as others thought).

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Tweak veracity

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> comex wrote:
>
>> (Then again, rarely do we encounter a paradox as beautiful
>> as that one.)
>
> I forget which of us actually came up with the idea.

Naw, that one was all you from what I remember.

You assigned it to me out of mischief, perhaps.  I posted this:
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2006-December/007370.html

Then you came up with the actual method:
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2006-December/007373.html

Sherlock volunteered and there you go.

-G.

Re: DIS: proto: Appeals of Consensus

[Ed Murphy]

comex wrote:

> Proto: Appeals of Consensus (AI=2)
> 
> Add the following paragraph to Rule 2158:
> 
>   The judge who delivered the most recent judgement in a judicial
>   question CAN, between four and fourteen days later, assign a new
>   valid judgement to that question without objection.
> 
> [Save appeal panels some work on trivial errors.]

"CAN, within the time limit for appealing that judgement"

Otherwise looks fine.  In particular, the CotC DB and web site should
be able to handle this with only some minor changes to admin scripts.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Tweak veracity

[Ed Murphy]

comex wrote:

> (Then again, rarely do we encounter a paradox as beautiful
> as that one.)

I forget which of us actually came up with the idea.

Proto-proto:  Patent Title of Medalist, to be awarded by a person
who won within the past week to one or more other persons whose
cooperation was instrumental to eir win, but who did not win at
the same time e did.  Award this to Goethe and Sherlock for their
cooperation with Murphy's win of December 2006.

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Tweak veracity

[warrigal]

"Tweak veracity a lot", adoption index 1.7:

{Amend Rule 591 (Inquiry Cases) by replacing the paragraph beginning
with "An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity," with
this text:

{An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is always
applicable.  The valid judgements for this question are as follows,
based on the veracity on the statement at the time the inquiry case
was initiated:

* TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically true

* FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically false

* POSITIVE, appropriate if neither TRUE nor FALSE is appropriate but
the statement would have been better described as true than false

* NEGATIVE, appropriate if neither TRUE nor FALSE is appropriate but
the statement would have been better described as false than true}}

"The sky is blue" is TRUE, "the sky is red" is FALSE, "this sentence
is false" is NEGATIVE (or POSITIVE, if you're weird), everyone's
happy.

--Warrigal of Escher

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5807-5821

[Ed Murphy]

comex wrote:

>> 5808 D 0 2.0 Murphy  Fix OVERLOOKED
> AGAINST, I don't really think the old version is a valid loophole, but
> this sure has the potential to be.  I can see what it's supposed to
> mean ("the rule breach it alleged was at least 200 days...") but it
> could easily be misconstrued as making OVERLOOKED inappropriate if the
> initiating announcement didn't happen to specify when the rule breach
> occurred.

I agree that this could be clearer, but R1504(c)'s "specific action"
ought to make such announcements ineffective.

>> 5809 D 0 2.0 Murphy  Unification
> VERY STRONGLY AGAINST.  Better to force judges to actually think about
> why exactly the defendant is not guilty, rather than judge INNOCENT
> and hope nobody appeals it.  The role of concrete rule-defined
> obligations has already been dumbed down with equity cases and
> support-requiring criminal cases.

I haven't gotten the two confused, myself.  Those who have, is it the
concepts that are confusing, or just the terms?

Here's my favorite LARP war story, albeit second-hand.  Context:  the
woman is a vampire, the lawyer was forced into her service.

   Mob> We're gonna take her out and hang her!
Lawyer> Why?
   Mob> Because she's an unholy demon from hell!
Lawyer> (realizing a golden opportunity) But that's not against the law.

>> 5815 D 1 2.0 Pavitra The Registrar is an office again now.
> AGAINST

Not that I have a strong opinion, but why?

DIS: proto: Appeals of Consensus

[comex]

Proto: Appeals of Consensus (AI=2)

Add the following paragraph to Rule 2158:

  The judge who delivered the most recent judgement in a judicial
  question CAN, between four and fourteen days later, assign a new
  valid judgement to that question without objection.

[Save appeal panels some work on trivial errors.]

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Tweak veracity

[comex]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:16 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> No, it doesn't.  If the outside case is judged true, it implies that A
>> is the judge of X, and therefore A judged X incorrectly while B judged
>> it correctly (but invalidly).  A might later be vindicated by further
>> debate of the subject, but there's no reason at that point in time to
>> assume that the judge of the outside case is wrong no matter what eir
>> judgement actually is.
>
> Except that's not what happened.  Precedent was set otherwise and Murphy
> was awarded the paradox win.  Important note: this was pre-large judicial
> reform so we treated judicial results differently then.  -G.

And yet while the Rules now more explicitly spell out that judgements
have no effect on the game, that was already game custom when that
clarification was introduced.  To change a certain situation from a
win by paradox to a rather boring confusion-- that would be a greater
Rule Change than most, but it happened with no vote, just a shift of
opinion.  (Then again, rarely do we encounter a paradox as beautiful
as that one.)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Tweak veracity

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yes it does.  Before one of the cases is appealed, an outside case
>> that says "A is the judge of case X" can't be judged true (for it
>> implies e isn't) and can't be judged false (for it implies e is).
>
> No, it doesn't.  If the outside case is judged true, it implies that A
> is the judge of X, and therefore A judged X incorrectly while B judged
> it correctly (but invalidly).  A might later be vindicated by further
> debate of the subject, but there's no reason at that point in time to
> assume that the judge of the outside case is wrong no matter what eir
> judgement actually is.

Except that's not what happened.  Precedent was set otherwise and Murphy
was awarded the paradox win.  Important note: this was pre-large judicial 
reform so we treated judicial results differently then.  -G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: FRC

[comex]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 24 Oct 2008, at 22:47, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> ITYM "Contest".
> ITYM "unambiguous".

I wouldn't say so, considering that the same message sent to frc-play
would have a totally different effect.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5807-5821

[warrigal]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:37 PM, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:33 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 5809 D 0 2.0 Murphy  Unification
>> VERY STRONGLY AGAINST.  Better to force judges to actually think about
>> why exactly the defendant is not guilty, rather than judge INNOCENT
>> and hope nobody appeals it.  The role of concrete rule-defined
>> obligations has already been dumbed down with equity cases and
>> support-requiring criminal cases.
>
> If you join the Llama Party, you can force BobTHJ and me to vote
> AGAINST (unless we're both FOR it, in which case you'll be voting
> AGAINST and we'll be voting FOR).

...and by force me to vote AGAINST, I mean prevent me from voting
anything else, of course.

--Warrigal, who has the honor to remain Escher's most humble and
obedient servant

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5807-5821

[warrigal]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:33 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 5809 D 0 2.0 Murphy  Unification
> VERY STRONGLY AGAINST.  Better to force judges to actually think about
> why exactly the defendant is not guilty, rather than judge INNOCENT
> and hope nobody appeals it.  The role of concrete rule-defined
> obligations has already been dumbed down with equity cases and
> support-requiring criminal cases.

If you join the Llama Party, you can force BobTHJ and me to vote
AGAINST (unless we're both FOR it, in which case you'll be voting
AGAINST and we'll be voting FOR).

--Warrigal of Escher

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Tweak veracity

[Ian Kelly]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes it does.  Before one of the cases is appealed, an outside case
> that says "A is the judge of case X" can't be judged true (for it
> implies e isn't) and can't be judged false (for it implies e is).

No, it doesn't.  If the outside case is judged true, it implies that A
is the judge of X, and therefore A judged X incorrectly while B judged
it correctly (but invalidly).  A might later be vindicated by further
debate of the subject, but there's no reason at that point in time to
assume that the judge of the outside case is wrong no matter what eir
judgement actually is.

-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Tweak veracity

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The paradox was the question of "who judged CFJ 1594".  This was before
>> judgement-questions were specifically excluded from paradox.  -Goethe
>
> I realize that.  The fact that you consulted two potential oracles and
> both said "I'm not the oracle; ask the other guy" doesn't make the
> question "who is the oracle" paradoxical.  It just means that the
> oracle was lying to you, and that those answers alone aren't going to
> be sufficient to resolve the question.

Yes it does.  Before one of the cases is appealed, an outside case
that says "A is the judge of case X" can't be judged true (for it
implies e isn't) and can't be judged false (for it implies e is).

-Goethe

Re: DIS: Proto: Poet Laureate

[Roger Hicks]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 15:09, Joshua Boehme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or as an alternative idea, the Poet Laureate could write verses on recent 
> Agoran history.
>
Here's an idea: The Poet Laureate adds a new stanza to a specific
certain rule each week, building upon previous stanzas. After a
certain amount of stanzas are added the PL gains a win and the rule is
reset.

BobTHJ

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Tweak veracity

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Goethe wrote:
>> The paradox was the question of "who judged CFJ 1594".  This was before
>> judgement-questions were specifically excluded from paradox.  -Goethe
>
> Before what, now?  Self-referential questions (e.g. "This statement is
> false") are specifically excluded from win-by-paradox, yes.

You're right, the rule talks about the "case" in question but the case
in question in this question is not the case in question.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Tweak veracity

[Ian Kelly]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the rules are ambiguous wrt interpretation, then FLOYD is not
> appropriate.

Why not, exactly?  If the rules are ambiguous, then indeed the
statement logically could have been described as either true or false,
depending on which legal interpretation you choose.

-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Tweak veracity

[Ed Murphy]

Goethe wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> That doesn't sound like a paradox at all.  Judgements do not change
>> gamestate; they only narrow down the axioms we employ in determining
>> gamestate.  So there was no causal loop of the judgements invalidating
>> themselves; there was just uncertainty as to which one had actually
>> happened, dependent wholly upon legal interpretation.  The appropriate
>> thing to do would have been to solicit a new, unambiguous judgement to
>> resolve the issue.
> 
> The paradox was the question of "who judged CFJ 1594".  This was before
> judgement-questions were specifically excluded from paradox.  -Goethe

Before what, now?  Self-referential questions (e.g. "This statement is
false") are specifically excluded from win-by-paradox, yes.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Tweak veracity

[Ed Murphy]

warrigal wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thursday 23 October 2008 04:10:14 pm Elliott Hird wrote:
>>>* FLOYD, appropriate if the statement was logically capable
>>> of being described as either true or false with equal accuracy
>> Accuracy may be equally "not much" (.01==.01). Probably better to say
>> something like:
>>   * FLOYD, appropriate if the statement logically could have been
>> consistently described as either true or false
> 
> If the rules are ambiguous and I call a CFJ to try to resolve the
> ambiguity, I don't want "Yep, that's ambiguous, all right"; I want a
> resolution.

If the rules are ambiguous wrt interpretation, then FLOYD is not
appropriate.  If the rules are ambiguous on purely logical grounds,
then in what way is one choice superior to the other?  (This is
murky because "This statement is true" could also be IRRELEVANT.)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Tweak veracity

[Ian Kelly]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The paradox was the question of "who judged CFJ 1594".  This was before
> judgement-questions were specifically excluded from paradox.  -Goethe

I realize that.  The fact that you consulted two potential oracles and
both said "I'm not the oracle; ask the other guy" doesn't make the
question "who is the oracle" paradoxical.  It just means that the
oracle was lying to you, and that those answers alone aren't going to
be sufficient to resolve the question.


> Why would the reasons have been incorrect?  They were both opinions
> within the realm of reason.

Ultimately, one of the reasons was determined to be legally correct,
and the other legally incorrect.


> I still don't believe it was appealable, due to the fact that it
> was uncertain who judged it and thus what was being appealed (Appeals
> used to be applied to a particular judge's judgement).  -G.

Good point.  It might have been possible to appeal both judgements and
assign them to the same panel.  The panel would have needed to
overturn (a sustention would have just kept things ambiguous), and the
arguments would presumably have made it clear which one was being
overturned, i.e. which one the appeal court considered to be the real
judge.

-root

Re: DIS: Proto: Poet Laureate

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, warrigal wrote:
>>  Listen, amongst the sounds of the   Heara, heara, const heara,
> Heara = listen, const = amongst? of?

Not bad overall!  

One thing to remember this is an epic.  In this example, the absolute literal 
translation is "sound, sound, around[us] sound".  It's actually a stock phrase 
that means "you are surrounded by interesting sounds, if you stop and listen" 
or alternately "shut up, I'm talking."

[Again, always hard to choose between the literal and the equivalent
figurative english].


-G.

Re: DIS: Proto: Poet Laureate

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> On Oct 24, 2008, at 1:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> 
>> Actually, how about as an Epic?
>> 
>> Create the following Rule (simultaneous transcription from old Agoran):
>
> What language did you use as "old Agoran?"  And what does Blob have to do 
> with 
> the first stanza?

Old Agoran is just that, old Agoran.  Polyglot due to its people, but rather 
peculiar to their geography, for example most words about talking and 
listening, and sending have a root related to the primitive phoneme at the
root of "fora".

Why the Agoran word for the color mauve is 'blob' and why that color is 
associated with ducks is obscure.  Or maybe license, epics tend to have a 
lot of stock-phrases, metaphor, and repetition that is hard to directly 
translate,  I tried to translate the metaphors to equivalent english rather 
than using literal word-by-word translation.

-G.

Re: DIS: Proto: Poet Laureate

[warrigal]

Yay, a parallel text!

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  O Agorans, now gather and hear me speak,'Tha Agorae masor forae nont
Agorae = Agorans, nont = speak?
>  Beneath the fountain's spray andUnttri fontaine siphora
Unttri = beneath, fontaine = fountain, siphora = spray?
>  Listen, amongst the sounds of the   Heara, heara, const heara,
Heara = listen, const = amongst? of?
>  mauve-dark ducks of our ancestors, listen,  Blob'non Canards const statuian
Blob'non = mauve-dark?, Canards = ducks, statuian = ancestors?
>  I am Rule-bound to speak,   pont Rula (SHALENIAN) nont
Rula = Rule, Rula (SHALENIAN) = Rule-bound, pont = I am?
>  of the Office bold, the Poet Laureate.  Offocon kellyira an Poenon 
> Loiror.
Offocon = Office, kellyira = bold/brave, an = the?, Poenon =
Poet/poetry, Loiror = Laureate

>  From Bards nominated, players elected,  Bordoican nomin, Hoi Agoron 
> vitton
Bordoican = (from) Bards, nomin = nominated?, Hoi = among/by, Agoron =
players, vitton = elected?
>  the brave Laureate, SHALL by weekly Report  Loiror kellyira SHALAM 'renMondan
SHALAM = SHALL, 'renMondan = by weekly Report?
>  Submit a Proposal (O brave Proposal!) which nontforae Prana, kellyira Prana!
nontforae = submit/publish, Prana = proposal
>  Among the People SHOULD be votedHoi Agoron VULE pontforae
VULE = SHOULD, pontforae = vote? misspelling of "nontforae"?
>  based on the wit and poetry it would addnomin mauda mauda Poenon son
nomin = based on? (contradictory translation above)
>  to the Rules or game.   Rula'non, Agora'non.
Rula'non = rules, Agora'non = Agora

>  And if, in each and every   Pre sona syl be syl
Pre = if?, sona = in?, syl = each/every?, be = and?
>  of a twelvemonth sequential,non oniki mooronen pilparan
>  the Laureate at least one such Proposal Loiror birin moran Prana
>  has adopted, the Rules acclaim that e   Yan pasan,  Rula pon'nont Loiror
pasan = adopted?, pon-nont = acclaim
>  achieves the winning condition of Lyre, venctor nontheraldon Liar.
nontheraldon = winning condition? (I notice it has "nont" and
"herald"), Liar = Lyre
>  and so it shall be true.Non isid- wsisb.  Isb.  Ii.

That's about as much as I can get out of this. May I have another, please?

--Warrigal of Escher

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Tweak veracity

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That doesn't sound like a paradox at all.  Judgements do not change
>> gamestate; they only narrow down the axioms we employ in determining
>> gamestate.  So there was no causal loop of the judgements invalidating
>> themselves; there was just uncertainty as to which one had actually
>> happened, dependent wholly upon legal interpretation.  The appropriate
>> thing to do would have been to solicit a new, unambiguous judgement to
>> resolve the issue.
>
> What's more, whichever judgement had actually happened was clearly
> incorrect, so a good way to solicit such a judgement would have been
> to just appeal it.

Why would the reasons have been incorrect?  They were both opinions
within the realm of reason.

I still don't believe it was appealable, due to the fact that it
was uncertain who judged it and thus what was being appealed (Appeals
used to be applied to a particular judge's judgement).  -G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Tweak veracity

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> That doesn't sound like a paradox at all.  Judgements do not change
> gamestate; they only narrow down the axioms we employ in determining
> gamestate.  So there was no causal loop of the judgements invalidating
> themselves; there was just uncertainty as to which one had actually
> happened, dependent wholly upon legal interpretation.  The appropriate
> thing to do would have been to solicit a new, unambiguous judgement to
> resolve the issue.

The paradox was the question of "who judged CFJ 1594".  This was before
judgement-questions were specifically excluded from paradox.  -Goethe

DIS: Re: BUS: A handful of parties.

[Elliott Hird]

On 24 Oct 2008, at 23:36, 0x44 wrote:


I become party to the Fantasy Rules Contest.
I become a Farmer.
I become party to the Vote Market.


I believe you would like the PBA. ;-)

--
ehird

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Tweak veracity

[Ian Kelly]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "This sentence is false" would be the canonical UNDECIDABLE.  Gnarly
> type paradoxes should also be UNDECIDABLE, I think.

Should be, but I can see no reason why FLOYD would not be equally
appropriate for a gnarly paradox.

-root

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposal 5806

[warrigal]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend, without objection, to terminate the Llama Party. It's clearly
> unfair on BobTHJ to be stuck having eir votes potentially controllable
> by Warrigal, who has no voting power emself. Also, Warrigal can't
> object, due to not being a player.

"A valid vote cast by a Llama of LLAMA (X), where X resolves to FOR or
AGAINST, is a party vote toward FOR or AGAINST, respectively."
Non-players can't cast valid votes, so non-players can't influence the
Llama vote. Besides, BobTHJ can leave at any time. (I ask that he
either leave the contract or object to its termination.)

Therefore, without objection, I intend to object anyway.

--Warrigal, Communal Hat of Escher

Re: DIS: Proto: Poet Laureate

[Benjamin Schultz]

On Oct 24, 2008, at 1:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:


Actually, how about as an Epic?

Create the following Rule (simultaneous transcription from old  
Agoran):


What language did you use as "old Agoran?"  And what does Blob have  
to do with the first stanza?


-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Tweak veracity

[Ed Murphy]

root wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That doesn't sound like a paradox at all.  Judgements do not change
>> gamestate; they only narrow down the axioms we employ in determining
>> gamestate.  So there was no causal loop of the judgements invalidating
>> themselves; there was just uncertainty as to which one had actually
>> happened, dependent wholly upon legal interpretation.  The appropriate
>> thing to do would have been to solicit a new, unambiguous judgement to
>> resolve the issue.
> 
> What's more, whichever judgement had actually happened was clearly
> incorrect, so a good way to solicit such a judgement would have been
> to just appeal it.

After the win was awarded, one of the judgements (Sherlock's IIRC, and
e was annoyed about it) was indeed overruled on appeal.  I believe this
provided the impetus for Rule 591's "do not directly affect" clause.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to deputise

[Ed Murphy]

Taral wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I accept this nomination.  I also predict that Taral will decline (or
>> at least not accept) eirs, as IIRC e ran away screaming the last time
>> e was so nominated.
> 
> Eh, if Murphy wants it, e can have it. Murphy?

Sure.  CotC duties remain nowhere near as onerous as (say) high-velocity
asset recordkeeping, I just need to actually get around to it regularly.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: FRC

[Elliott Hird]

On 24 Oct 2008, at 22:47, Ed Murphy wrote:


ITYM "Contest".



ITYM "unambiguous".

--
ehird

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Tweak veracity

[Ed Murphy]

root wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Logical:  "This statement is true."  On the basis of logic alone,
>> either TRUE or FALSE is self-consistent.
>>
>> Legal:  "Goethe was a player at > 2006>".  According to one legal interpretation, TRUE is consistent
>> and FALSE is not; according to another, FALSE is consistent and
>> TRUE is not.
> 
> I don't recall the details of Goethe's paradox; I think I was
> deregistered at the time.  But in general, if something is purely a
> matter of legal interpretation, then neither UNDECIDABLE nor FLOYD
> would be appropriate.  It's the judge's job in such a case to pick a
> legal interpretation and judge TRUE or FALSE based upon it.  That's
> the whole purpose of the judicial system to begin with.

Agreed; I didn't mean Goethe's paradox was UNDECIDABLE (the "however"
clause of UNDECIDABLE ensures this), I just meant it was not-FLOYD.

"This sentence is false" would be the canonical UNDECIDABLE.  Gnarly
type paradoxes should also be UNDECIDABLE, I think.

DIS: Re: BUS: FRC

[Ed Murphy]

ehird wrote:

> I join the Fantasy Rules Committee, just to bump up its maximum point  
> award.

ITYM "Contest".

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to deputise

[Taral]

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I accept this nomination.  I also predict that Taral will decline (or
> at least not accept) eirs, as IIRC e ran away screaming the last time
> e was so nominated.

Eh, if Murphy wants it, e can have it. Murphy?

-- 
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown

Re: DIS: Proto: Poet Laureate

[Joshua Boehme]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:14:29 -0500
Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Our Bards are Three! Let's celebrate
> And not this moment shun -- 
> Proposal, "Poet Laureate",
> AI and II 1:
> {
> [Ordain an Office for us who'll
> Ensure that prose stays not the same.]
> At Power 1, create a Rule,
> "The Poet Laureate" its name:
> 
>       There is an office Poet Laureate,
>   Which no one but a Bard can occupy.
>   So long eir post e doesn't abdicate,
>   Eir weekly duties are that e must try
>   To make a new Proposal to amend
>   A Rule, still writ in prose, to verse and rhyme.
>   And, if the Vote permits the Rule to mend,
>   Eir monthly duty thus is done on time.
>   But, if eir week's reports are failed four times,
>   E shall in timely fashion nominate
>   (As full sufficient penance for these crimes)
>   Some other Bard for Poet Laureate.
>   But, if a year e does not lapse or flee,
>   E fits the Win Condition Poetry.
> 
> }
> 

Or as an alternative idea, the Poet Laureate could write verses on recent 
Agoran history.

-- 

Elysion

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Scorekeepor] Scorecard

[Ian Kelly]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 14:52 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> Scorekeepor's Scoreboard
>>
>> Player Score
>> 
>> Quazie13
>> pikhq  6
>> Murphy82
>> Wooble12
>> ais52368
>> OscarMeyr 12
>> root  15
>> Goethe30
>> BobTHJ38
>> comex 16
>
> I issue a Buy Ticket for 3VP, targetted at root (i.e. can only be filled
> by em), specifying that e award me the 30 points I will gain next week
> from the Fantasy Rules Contest (10 for a valid 1.6SP fantasy rule, 20
> for winning the round) before 15:00 UTC next Monday.

Any counter-bribes?

-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Tweak veracity

[Ian Kelly]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That doesn't sound like a paradox at all.  Judgements do not change
> gamestate; they only narrow down the axioms we employ in determining
> gamestate.  So there was no causal loop of the judgements invalidating
> themselves; there was just uncertainty as to which one had actually
> happened, dependent wholly upon legal interpretation.  The appropriate
> thing to do would have been to solicit a new, unambiguous judgement to
> resolve the issue.

What's more, whichever judgement had actually happened was clearly
incorrect, so a good way to solicit such a judgement would have been
to just appeal it.

-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Tweak veracity

[Ian Kelly]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Logical:  "This statement is true."  On the basis of logic alone,
>>> either TRUE or FALSE is self-consistent.
>>>
>>> Legal:  "Goethe was a player at >> 2006>".  According to one legal interpretation, TRUE is consistent
>>> and FALSE is not; according to another, FALSE is consistent and
>>> TRUE is not.
>>
>> I don't recall the details of Goethe's paradox; I think I was
>> deregistered at the time.  But in general, if something is purely a
>> matter of legal interpretation, then neither UNDECIDABLE nor FLOYD
>> would be appropriate.  It's the judge's job in such a case to pick a
>> legal interpretation and judge TRUE or FALSE based upon it.  That's
>> the whole purpose of the judicial system to begin with.
>
> It was geniunely one of those UNDECIDABLE ones.
>
> Murphy assigned a CFJ on whether or not I was a player to myself, then
> immediately afterwards to Sherlock (only valid if I wasn't a player).
>
> I judged I was not a player, therefore my judgement was invalid
> and Sherlock's assignment worked.
>
> Sherlock judged that I was a player therefore eir judgement
> was invalid and my assignment worked.
>
> The important thing was that objectively, there were quite reasonable
> arguments on both sides for whether I was a player or not (it was
> debated before the assignments).

That doesn't sound like a paradox at all.  Judgements do not change
gamestate; they only narrow down the axioms we employ in determining
gamestate.  So there was no causal loop of the judgements invalidating
themselves; there was just uncertainty as to which one had actually
happened, dependent wholly upon legal interpretation.  The appropriate
thing to do would have been to solicit a new, unambiguous judgement to
resolve the issue.

-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bank Motion: Portfolio Management

[Elliott Hird]

On 24 Oct 2008, at 21:39, comex wrote:


I agree to the following pledge:
{
This is a pledge.  Bones are a currency.  The Treasurer is the
recordkeeper of Bones.  Initially the Treasurer is comex.
}



Royal Bank of UNDEAD!

--
ehird

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Tweak veracity

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Logical:  "This statement is true."  On the basis of logic alone,
>> either TRUE or FALSE is self-consistent.
>>
>> Legal:  "Goethe was a player at > 2006>".  According to one legal interpretation, TRUE is consistent
>> and FALSE is not; according to another, FALSE is consistent and
>> TRUE is not.
>
> I don't recall the details of Goethe's paradox; I think I was
> deregistered at the time.  But in general, if something is purely a
> matter of legal interpretation, then neither UNDECIDABLE nor FLOYD
> would be appropriate.  It's the judge's job in such a case to pick a
> legal interpretation and judge TRUE or FALSE based upon it.  That's
> the whole purpose of the judicial system to begin with.

It was geniunely one of those UNDECIDABLE ones.

Murphy assigned a CFJ on whether or not I was a player to myself, then
immediately afterwards to Sherlock (only valid if I wasn't a player).

I judged I was not a player, therefore my judgement was invalid
and Sherlock's assignment worked.

Sherlock judged that I was a player therefore eir judgement
was invalid and my assignment worked.

The important thing was that objectively, there were quite reasonable
arguments on both sides for whether I was a player or not (it was 
debated before the assignments).

-Goethe

DIS: Re: BUS: Vote Market - Broker's Report

[Roger Hicks]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 13:53, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 24 October 2008 02:46:07 pm Roger Hicks wrote:
>> AVAILABLE TICKETS
>> 
>> Pavitra
>>  BUY - 3VP - Agree to the Crescendo pledge
>
> CoE: This has since been filled by ais523.
>
Admitted, thanks.

BobTHJ

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I still suck at this sort of thing, but

[Elliott Hird]

On 24 Oct 2008, at 20:26, Roger Hicks wrote:


NOTE: After this withdraw I show the RBoA having 260 coins remaining.
The PBA would seem to have a different figure. What's the difference?



I dunno. I don't have your recent change history; you have the PBA's.  
Search for 'RBoA',
all the lines are in a standard format (due to being generated by  
pba.py.)


--
ehird

DIS: Re: BUS: RE: AAA

[Taral]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:08 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 14:37, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Taral wrote:
>>> I harvest 955, an amended power 3 rule, for 8 crops.
>> If I have at least two 9 crops and at least two 5 crops, I harvest
>> 995, the number of a recently-amended power 3 rule, for 8 random
>> crops.
>
> I create the following crops in ais523's possession:
>
> 4, 6, 1, 5, 7, 1, 9, X

Hm. :P

-- 
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Tweak veracity

[Ian Kelly]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Logical:  "This statement is true."  On the basis of logic alone,
> either TRUE or FALSE is self-consistent.
>
> Legal:  "Goethe was a player at  2006>".  According to one legal interpretation, TRUE is consistent
> and FALSE is not; according to another, FALSE is consistent and
> TRUE is not.

I don't recall the details of Goethe's paradox; I think I was
deregistered at the time.  But in general, if something is purely a
matter of legal interpretation, then neither UNDECIDABLE nor FLOYD
would be appropriate.  It's the judge's job in such a case to pick a
legal interpretation and judge TRUE or FALSE based upon it.  That's
the whole purpose of the judicial system to begin with.

-root

DIS: Re: BUS: I still suck at this sort of thing, but

[Roger Hicks]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 13:22, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:42, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I RBoA-withdraw as many coins as I can.
>>
> 218 coins for 1308 chits leaving you with 5 chits remaining.
>
> BobTHJ
>
NOTE: After this withdraw I show the RBoA having 260 coins remaining.
The PBA would seem to have a different figure. What's the difference?

BobTHJ

DIS: Re: BUS: I still suck at this sort of thing, but

[Roger Hicks]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:42, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I RBoA-withdraw as many coins as I can.
>
218 coins for 1308 chits leaving you with 5 chits remaining.

BobTHJ

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Report

[Ed Murphy]

ehird wrote:

> On 24 Oct 2008, at 19:43, Ed Murphy wrote:
> 
>> You should link to this from http://www.nomictools.com/
> 
> 
> Sidebar.

Ah, I missed that everything under "Useful links" was external.  Also,
the sidebar's color scheme is hard to read.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Tweak veracity

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Logical:  "This statement is true."  On the basis of logic alone,
> either TRUE or FALSE is self-consistent.
>
> Legal:  "Goethe was a player at  2006>".  According to one legal interpretation, TRUE is consistent
> and FALSE is not; according to another, FALSE is consistent and
> TRUE is not.

The legal example depends on what theory of gamestate you subscribe to.  
One could equally say that there's two gamestates, and each gamestate has 
a different self-consistent answer.  [If you don't like "gamestate" as
it implies multiple universes, substitute "set of axioms"].

-Goethe

Re: DIS: Proto: Poet Laureate

[Ed Murphy]

root wrote:

> Not really.  The Mad Scientist's weekly duty is just to create the
> proposal.  There's also some useless verbiage about how the proposal
> constitutes the Mad Scientist's report if it's adopted, but that
> portion of eir duties is always either absent or trivially fulfilled.

The useless verbiage pre-dates the generalization from reports to
duties.  IIRC I've got a proposal currently in voting period to
remove it.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Report

[Geoffrey Spear]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wooble wrote:
>
>> (partial report at http://www.nomictools.com/agora/tailor)
>
> You should link to this from http://www.nomictools.com/

Umm, it's the only link in the sidebar.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Tweak veracity

[Ed Murphy]

root wrote:

>> FLOYD is specifically limited to logical interpretation, not legal
>> interpretation.  In particular, the paradox that led to my win in
>> December 2006 depended on two equally-plausible legal interpretations,
>> of which one was eventually discarded for entirely practical reasons
>> (we needed to resolve the paradox somehow).
> 
> I'm not clear on what you intend the distinction to be.

Logical:  "This statement is true."  On the basis of logic alone,
either TRUE or FALSE is self-consistent.

Legal:  "Goethe was a player at ".  According to one legal interpretation, TRUE is consistent
and FALSE is not; according to another, FALSE is consistent and
TRUE is not.

Re: DIS: Scorekeepor's report

[Roger Hicks]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:49, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is just a reminder to BobTHJ that Scorekeepor is high-priority; e
> seems to have forgotten for a couple of weeks in a row. I'm not crimming
> em over this, not yet anyway, partly due to all the trouble I've been
> causing em lately...

Forthcomingsorry for the wait.

BobTHJ

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Report

[Elliott Hird]

On 24 Oct 2008, at 19:43, Ed Murphy wrote:


You should link to this from http://www.nomictools.com/



Sidebar.

--
ehird

DIS: Re: BUS: I still suck at this sort of thing, but

[Elliott Hird]

On 24 Oct 2008, at 19:42, Ed Murphy wrote:


I RBoA-withdraw as many coins as I can.



BobTHJ?

--
ehird

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bank Motion: Portfolio Management

[Ian Kelly]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:38, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> BobTHJ wrote:
>>
>>> If the Treasurer and the RBoA are both members of this contract, the
>>
>> And where is the Treasurer defined?
>>
>
> Section 3 of the RBoA:
> {
> 3. Chits are a currency. The Treasurer is the recordkeeper of Chits.
> Initially the Treasurer is BobTHJ.
> }

It would probably be best to specify the "Treasurer of the RBoA", not
just any old Treasurer.

-root

DIS: Re: BUS: douple dipping?

[Ian Kelly]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend, with 2 support, to initiate a criminal CFJ alleging that
> ais523 violated Rule 2143 by failing to publish a Mad Scientist's
> report for the week of 6 Oct. 2008.
>
> Rule 2192(d) establishes that the Mad Scientist has a weekly report,
> and only having a Monster Proposal actually adopted counts as the
> publication of that report. The last such proposal adopted was on 7
> Sept.; H. Mad Scientist ais523 thus failed in eir duty to publish eir
> report for 4 consecutive weeks.

The requirement per R2143 is to publish all information defined as
part of the report, not to publish "the report".  What information did
e fail to publish?

-root

DIS: Scorekeepor's report

[Alex Smith]

This is just a reminder to BobTHJ that Scorekeepor is high-priority; e
seems to have forgotten for a couple of weeks in a row. I'm not crimming
em over this, not yet anyway, partly due to all the trouble I've been
causing em lately...
-- 
ais523

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: RE: protection racket CFJ

[Ed Murphy]

Pavitra wrote:

> On Friday 24 October 2008 11:14:43 am Ed Murphy wrote:
>>   The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the
>>   case.  All other members of the bases of the parties to the
>>   contract are also unqualified, except while this would result
>>   in all entities being unqualified.
> 
> I'm not necessarily recommending changing it, but can someone explain 
> the advantages and disadvantages of this version versus "all other 
> members of the bases of the parties to the contract are poorly 
> qualified"?

Rule 1868 says the CotC SHALL NOT assign a poorly-qualified judge.  In
this situation, EXCUSED is possible, but not guaranteed (is it worse
to assign a poorly-qualified judge, or to leave the case unassigned?).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bank Motion: Portfolio Management

[Roger Hicks]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:38, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BobTHJ wrote:
>
>> If the Treasurer and the RBoA are both members of this contract, the
>
> And where is the Treasurer defined?
>

Section 3 of the RBoA:
{
3. Chits are a currency. The Treasurer is the recordkeeper of Chits.
Initially the Treasurer is BobTHJ.
}

BobTHJ

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: When will you RBoA guys learn?

[Alex Smith]

On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 11:40 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
> 
> > I PBA-withdraw 8 Coins for 48 Chits.
> 
> Come again?
Obviously ineffective. I sent a corrected version in the next message.
-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Report

[Ed Murphy]

Wooble wrote:

> (partial report at http://www.nomictools.com/agora/tailor)

You should link to this from http://www.nomictools.com/

DIS: Re: BUS: When will you RBoA guys learn?

[Ed Murphy]

ais523 wrote:

> I PBA-withdraw 8 Coins for 48 Chits.

Come again?

DIS: Re: BUS: Bank Motion: Portfolio Management

[Ed Murphy]

BobTHJ wrote:

> If the Treasurer and the RBoA are both members of this contract, the

And where is the Treasurer defined?

Re: DIS: Proto: Poet Laureate

[Ian Kelly]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> No objection, and general approval, to a rule giving a bard a win
>> if e manages weekly displays of wit, poetry, etc. with some
>> approval method for quality (e.g. through proposal).   I'm just not
>> sure if "constant proposals to amend rules" is the way to go.
> That's the way Mad Scientist currently works. Based on your
> observations of that office, how do you recommend the mechanic be
> altered?

Not really.  The Mad Scientist's weekly duty is just to create the
proposal.  There's also some useless verbiage about how the proposal
constitutes the Mad Scientist's report if it's adopted, but that
portion of eir duties is always either absent or trivially fulfilled.

-root

DIS: Enigma reminder

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 07:12 -0400, Joshua Boehme wrote:
> I join Enigma.
> 
There's still time to submit solutions to the current Enigma puzzle! For
everyone who hasn't submitted a solution, this week's puzzle is at


You don't have to be a member of Enigma right now to submit a solution,
but you have to join by the end of the answer submission period to be
eligible to score points.

Happy puzzling!

-- 
ais523
Enigma contestmaster

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: When will you RBoA guys learn?

[Ian Kelly]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I PBA-withdraw two 0 crops for ^3+^4 = ^7.
>> I RBoA-deposit two 0 crops for 25*2=50 Chits.
>> I PBA-withdraw 8 Coins for 48 Chits.
>> --
>
> You net 1 coin and 2 chits out of thiscongratulations.

More importantly, the new rate encourages deposits of things that aren't coins.

-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Tweak veracity

[Ian Kelly]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> root wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>  * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically
>>>undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately
>>>described as either true or false
>>>
>>>  * FLOYD, appropriate if the statement logically could have been
>>>consistently described as either true or false
>>
>> But isn't a logically undecidable statement one that could be
>> consistently described as either true or false?
>
> Arguably, on a FLOYD statement, one can come to either decision
> without incurring contradiction.

This would be clearer if both used the same phrasing.


>> Actually, that's not quite true.  Truth and falsehood of a statement
>> are relative to its interpretation, but decidability is relative to
>> the system in which one attempts to prove it, and isn't necessarily
>> related to truth at all.  For example, in the trivial formal system
>> with no axioms and no rules of inference, nothing is a theorem, and so
>> everything is undecidable.  Since we're interested in truth and not
>> decidability, we should probably just get rid of that clause
>> altogether.
>>
>> I don't see why FLOYD and UNDECIDABLE should be separate, though.
>> Most of the interesting game-winning paradoxes we've had have been
>> examples of FLOYD, and they shouldn't be disqualified from winning.
>> What about something like:
>>
>> * POSSIBLE, appropriate if the statement was neither uniquely true nor
>> uniquely false.
>
> FLOYD is specifically limited to logical interpretation, not legal
> interpretation.  In particular, the paradox that led to my win in
> December 2006 depended on two equally-plausible legal interpretations,
> of which one was eventually discarded for entirely practical reasons
> (we needed to resolve the paradox somehow).

I'm not clear on what you intend the distinction to be.

-root

Re: DIS: Proto: Poet Laureate

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Pavitra wrote:
> On Friday 24 October 2008 11:29:50 am Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I don't mind a weekly proposal, but completing eir monthly reports
>> is dependent on voters wanting their rules to rhyme?  Not an office
>> I'd personally take.
> I assume that if voters don't want their rules to rhyme then this
> proposal won't pass. Also, line 11 protects the Poet Laureate from
> litigation if eir proposals fail.

Forcing a new nomination monthly isn't protection.  I'd just take out
the "required to have a proposal pass monthly as a monthly report."  
Requiring weekly proposals are fine, a certain number of them passing
over time making a win condition, fine, but not requiring monthly
nominations for failure to adopt, especially as the pool of bards is
fairly small- if a poet isn't good, someone can just start a nomination 
anyway.

-G.

Re: DIS: Proto: Poet Laureate

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:14, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Our Bards are Three! Let's celebrate
>> And not this moment shun --
>> Proposal, "Poet Laureate",

Actually, how about as an Epic?

Create the following Rule (simultaneous transcription from old Agoran):

  O Agorans, now gather and hear me speak,'Tha Agorae masor forae nont 
  Beneath the fountain's spray andUnttri fontaine siphora 
  Listen, amongst the sounds of the   Heara, heara, const heara,
  mauve-dark ducks of our ancestors, listen,  Blob'non Canards const statuian
  I am Rule-bound to speak,   pont Rula (SHALENIAN) nont
  of the Office bold, the Poet Laureate.  Offocon kellyira an Poenon Loiror.

  From Bards nominated, players elected,  Bordoican nomin, Hoi Agoron 
vitton 
  the brave Laureate, SHALL by weekly Report  Loiror kellyira SHALAM 'renMondan 
 
  Submit a Proposal (O brave Proposal!) which nontforae Prana, kellyira Prana!
  Among the People SHOULD be votedHoi Agoron VULE pontforae
  based on the wit and poetry it would addnomin mauda mauda Poenon son
  to the Rules or game.   Rula'non, Agora'non. 

  And if, in each and every   Pre sona syl be syl
  of a twelvemonth sequential,non oniki mooronen pilparan
  the Laureate at least one such Proposal Loiror birin moran Prana 
  has adopted, the Rules acclaim that e   Yan pasan,  Rula pon'nont Loiror
  achieves the winning condition of Lyre, venctor nontheraldon Liar.
  and so it shall be true.Non isid- wsisb.  Isb.  Ii.
 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: banking

[Elliott Hird]

On 24 Oct 2008, at 18:36, Roger Hicks wrote:


Here you succeed in withdrawing 11 Coins for 66 chits, leaving you
with 2 chits remaining.



Now come on. "instead" and the context clearly means it shouldn't  
happen if the previous

succeeded.

--
ehird

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More bandwagoning

[Elliott Hird]

On 24 Oct 2008, at 18:34, Roger Hicks wrote:


On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:31, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


On 24 Oct 2008, at 18:18, Roger Hicks wrote:


I RBoA-deposit ^50 for 500 chits.


I'll assume for now that this works, though ehird please let me know
if Murphy has insufficient coins to make this RBOA deposit.


It doesn't. Recorded at http://agora.eso-std.org/pba-report;  
basically no

collateral
damage.


You seem to be missing Wooble's transaction from yesterday from your
report - withdrawing a Favor from the RBOA and depositing it in the
PBA.

BobTHJ



fix'd.

--
ehird

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: banking

[Roger Hicks]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:06, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since that probably failed, I instead withdraw 65 coins for 390 chits.
> (I rounded in the wrong place I think)
>
Here you succeed in withdrawing 11 Coins for 66 chits, leaving you
with 2 chits remaining.

BobTHJ

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More bandwagoning

[Roger Hicks]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:31, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 24 Oct 2008, at 18:18, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>>
>>> I RBoA-deposit ^50 for 500 chits.
>>
>> I'll assume for now that this works, though ehird please let me know
>> if Murphy has insufficient coins to make this RBOA deposit.
>
> It doesn't. Recorded at http://agora.eso-std.org/pba-report; basically no
> collateral
> damage.
>
You seem to be missing Wooble's transaction from yesterday from your
report - withdrawing a Favor from the RBOA and depositing it in the
PBA.

BobTHJ

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More bandwagoning

[Elliott Hird]

On 24 Oct 2008, at 18:32, Alex Smith wrote:

According to ehird's website, Murphy only had ^43 at that point.  
ehird,

care to make that official?



I already said that to a-d.

--
ehird

DIS: Re: BUS: banking

[Roger Hicks]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:01, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I withdraw 74 coins from the RBoA for 395 chits.
>
I'm considering this an effective withdraw of 74 coins for a cost of 444 chits.

BobTHJ

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More bandwagoning

[Elliott Hird]

On 24 Oct 2008, at 18:18, Roger Hicks wrote:

I RBoA-deposit ^50 for 500 chits.

I'll assume for now that this works, though ehird please let me know
if Murphy has insufficient coins to make this RBOA deposit.


It doesn't. Recorded at http://agora.eso-std.org/pba-report;  
basically no collateral

damage.

--
ehird

DIS: Re: BUS: When will you RBoA guys learn?

[Roger Hicks]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:51, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 10:35 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 09:06, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I initiate an RBOA Bank Motion to modify exchange rates as follows:
>> >
>> > Coins - 5
>> > 1 Crops - 70
>> > 5 Crops - 80
>> > 6 Crops - 75
>> >
>> > I approve of this motion.
>> >
>> I resolve the above motion:
>> As the bank approves of this motion I implement the above exchange rate 
>> changes.
> I PBA-withdraw two 0 crops for ^3+^4 = ^7.
> I RBoA-deposit two 0 crops for 25*2=50 Chits.
> I PBA-withdraw 8 Coins for 48 Chits.
> --

You net 1 coin and 2 chits out of thiscongratulations.

BobTHJ

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: RE: protection racket CFJ

[Pavitra]

On Friday 24 October 2008 11:14:43 am Ed Murphy wrote:
>   The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the
>   case.  All other members of the bases of the parties to the
>   contract are also unqualified, except while this would result
>   in all entities being unqualified.

I'm not necessarily recommending changing it, but can someone explain 
the advantages and disadvantages of this version versus "all other 
members of the bases of the parties to the contract are poorly 
qualified"?

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: banking

[Elliott Hird]

On 24 Oct 2008, at 18:06, Geoffrey Spear wrote:

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Geoffrey Spear  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I withdraw 74 coins from the RBoA for 395 chits.


Since that probably failed, I instead withdraw 65 coins for 390 chits.
(I rounded in the wrong place I think)



Waiting for BobTHJ on this one.

--
ehird

Re: DIS: Proto: Poet Laureate

[Pavitra]

On Friday 24 October 2008 11:29:50 am Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I don't mind a weekly proposal, but completing eir monthly reports
> is dependent on voters wanting their rules to rhyme?  Not an office
> I'd personally take.
I assume that if voters don't want their rules to rhyme then this 
proposal won't pass. Also, line 11 protects the Poet Laureate from 
litigation if eir proposals fail.

> No objection, and general approval, to a rule giving a bard a win
> if e manages weekly displays of wit, poetry, etc. with some
> approval method for quality (e.g. through proposal).   I'm just not
> sure if "constant proposals to amend rules" is the way to go.
That's the way Mad Scientist currently works. Based on your 
observations of that office, how do you recommend the mechanic be 
altered?

Pavitra

DIS: Re: BUS: Land management

[Roger Hicks]

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 16:31, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The AFO transfers the Union Train Depot to me.

Fails. You presently own the Union Train Depot.

BobTHJ

DIS: Re: BUS: More bandwagoning

[Roger Hicks]

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 14:43, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I PBA-deposit four 7 crops (I think this gets me ^30).
You only deposit two 7 crops as that is all you have.

> I PBA-deposit four 9 crops (I think this gets me ^90).
You only deposit one 9 crop as that is all you have.

> I RBoA-deposit ^50 for 500 chits.
I'll assume for now that this works, though ehird please let me know
if Murphy has insufficient coins to make this RBOA deposit.

> I RBoA-withdraw four 7 crops (I think this costs me 260 chits).
The RBOA only has one. You withdraw it for 72 chits.

> I RBoA-withdraw four 9 crops (I think this costs me 320 chits).
OK, though it costs you 352 chits.

BobTHJ

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Tweak veracity

[Ed Murphy]

root wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>  * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically
>>undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately
>>described as either true or false
>>
>>  * FLOYD, appropriate if the statement logically could have been
>>consistently described as either true or false
> 
> But isn't a logically undecidable statement one that could be
> consistently described as either true or false?

Arguably, on a FLOYD statement, one can come to either decision
without incurring contradiction.

> Actually, that's not quite true.  Truth and falsehood of a statement
> are relative to its interpretation, but decidability is relative to
> the system in which one attempts to prove it, and isn't necessarily
> related to truth at all.  For example, in the trivial formal system
> with no axioms and no rules of inference, nothing is a theorem, and so
> everything is undecidable.  Since we're interested in truth and not
> decidability, we should probably just get rid of that clause
> altogether.
> 
> I don't see why FLOYD and UNDECIDABLE should be separate, though.
> Most of the interesting game-winning paradoxes we've had have been
> examples of FLOYD, and they shouldn't be disqualified from winning.
> What about something like:
>
> * POSSIBLE, appropriate if the statement was neither uniquely true nor
> uniquely false.

FLOYD is specifically limited to logical interpretation, not legal
interpretation.  In particular, the paradox that led to my win in
December 2006 depended on two equally-plausible legal interpretations,
of which one was eventually discarded for entirely practical reasons
(we needed to resolve the paradox somehow).

Re: DIS: New agoranomic.org page

[Sgeo]

Some tweaks to http://sgeo.diagonalfish.net/agora/newmain.htm done,
tried adding information on the recent situation with The Monster, but
##nomic said it was unnecessary and inaccurate, so I removed it. Still
not sure what the Canada stuff is about.

Re: DIS: Proto: Poet Laureate

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>   There is an office Poet Laureate,
>>  Which no one but a Bard can occupy.
>>  So long eir post e doesn't abdicate,
>>  Eir weekly duties are that e must try
>>  To make a new Proposal to amend
>>  A Rule, still writ in prose, to verse and rhyme.

Who shall judge what verse is?  Is it blank verse if it has the
same text with odd line breaks (not preserved anyway?) Or does
it have to be sing-song doggerel, the rhyme's the thing?

>>  And, if the Vote permits the Rule to mend,
>>  Eir monthly duty thus is done on time.

I don't mind a weekly proposal, but completing eir monthly reports is 
dependent on voters wanting their rules to rhyme?  Not an office I'd
personally take.

>>  But, if eir week's reports are failed four times,
>>  E shall in timely fashion nominate
>>  (As full sufficient penance for these crimes)
>>  Some other Bard for Poet Laureate.
>>  But, if a year e does not lapse or flee,
>>  E fits the Win Condition Poetry.

No objection, and general approval, to a rule giving a bard a win if e 
manages weekly displays of wit, poetry, etc. with some approval method
for quality (e.g. through proposal).   I'm just not sure if "constant 
proposals to amend rules" is the way to go.

-G.

Re: DIS: Proto: Poet Laureate

[Alex Smith]

On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 10:18 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Bravo! You'd have my vote if you sent this to the public forum.
Not mine, though, as it's insufficiently Powerful to allow wins. (You
need Power 2 for that.)
-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Proto: Poet Laureate

[Roger Hicks]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:14, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Our Bards are Three! Let's celebrate
> And not this moment shun --
> Proposal, "Poet Laureate",
> AI and II 1:
> {
> [Ordain an Office for us who'll
> Ensure that prose stays not the same.]
> At Power 1, create a Rule,
> "The Poet Laureate" its name:
>
>   There is an office Poet Laureate,
>  Which no one but a Bard can occupy.
>  So long eir post e doesn't abdicate,
>  Eir weekly duties are that e must try
>  To make a new Proposal to amend
>  A Rule, still writ in prose, to verse and rhyme.
>  And, if the Vote permits the Rule to mend,
>  Eir monthly duty thus is done on time.
>  But, if eir week's reports are failed four times,
>  E shall in timely fashion nominate
>  (As full sufficient penance for these crimes)
>  Some other Bard for Poet Laureate.
>  But, if a year e does not lapse or flee,
>  E fits the Win Condition Poetry.
>
Bravo! You'd have my vote if you sent this to the public forum.

BobTHJ

DIS: Proto: Poet Laureate

[Pavitra]

Our Bards are Three! Let's celebrate
And not this moment shun -- 
Proposal, "Poet Laureate",
AI and II 1:
{
[Ordain an Office for us who'll
Ensure that prose stays not the same.]
At Power 1, create a Rule,
"The Poet Laureate" its name:

      There is an office Poet Laureate,
  Which no one but a Bard can occupy.
  So long eir post e doesn't abdicate,
  Eir weekly duties are that e must try
  To make a new Proposal to amend
  A Rule, still writ in prose, to verse and rhyme.
  And, if the Vote permits the Rule to mend,
  Eir monthly duty thus is done on time.
  But, if eir week's reports are failed four times,
  E shall in timely fashion nominate
  (As full sufficient penance for these crimes)
  Some other Bard for Poet Laureate.
  But, if a year e does not lapse or flee,
  E fits the Win Condition Poetry.

}

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: inactives

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> Having received no objections, I make H. Speaker pikhq inactive. May
>> death come quickly to Speaker BobTHJ's enemies!
>>
> Hooray! I'd like to thank my agent

And just in time for both prerogatives and promotions.  BobTHJ, it looks
like you can accept bribes for castes after all.  -G.

DIS: Re: BUS: inactives

[Roger Hicks]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 08:05, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I intend, without objection, to deregister Schrodinger's Cat and avpx.
>>
>> I intend, without objection, to make Speaker pikhq inactive.
>
> Having received no objections, I deregister Schrodinger's Cat and avpx.
>
> Having received no objections, I make H. Speaker pikhq inactive. May
> death come quickly to Speaker BobTHJ's enemies!
>
Hooray! I'd like to thank my agent

BobTHJ

DIS: Re: BUS: inactives

[Alex Smith]

On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 10:05 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I intend, without objection, to deregister Schrodinger's Cat and avpx.
> >
> > I intend, without objection, to make Speaker pikhq inactive.
> 
> Having received no objections, I deregister Schrodinger's Cat and avpx.
> 
> Having received no objections, I make H. Speaker pikhq inactive. May
> death come quickly to Speaker BobTHJ's enemies!
Aaargh!
-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: New agoranomic.org page

[Roger Hicks]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 07:49, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 7:08 AM, Joshua Boehme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the Ruleset has multiple authors. 
>> Would there be a distinction between the legal rights of someone who has 
>> contributed versus a player who hasn't? What if a player contributed to the 
>> Ruleset, but eir contributions have subsequently been removed? (Those 
>> questions probably only make sense if we disregard any implied license.)
>
> I believe the only distinction is that someone who contributed could
> sue everyone else for creating derivative works and distributing their
> IP without a license.  It doesn't grant a license to distribute
> others' work that happens to include your contributions.
>
> I think it's quite likely that there's plenty of technical
> infringement of copyright going on, but from a practical perspective,
> it's incredibly unlikely anyone would try to enforce their copyrights
> in game documents.  And it's also possible that Peter Suber holds the
> copyright and all of the derivative works based on his initial ruleset
> are un-copyrightable as unauthorized derivatives.
>
> It would probably be safest to include an explicit grant of license in
> a future nomic if you're really worried about such things, but trying
> to track down all of the contributors to get a license for the
> existing ruleset would be kind of pointless.
>
Copyrighting any intellectual property in the modern internet age
seems rather pointless IMHO.

BobTHJ

Re: DIS: New agoranomic.org page

[Geoffrey Spear]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 7:08 AM, Joshua Boehme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the Ruleset has multiple authors. 
> Would there be a distinction between the legal rights of someone who has 
> contributed versus a player who hasn't? What if a player contributed to the 
> Ruleset, but eir contributions have subsequently been removed? (Those 
> questions probably only make sense if we disregard any implied license.)

I believe the only distinction is that someone who contributed could
sue everyone else for creating derivative works and distributing their
IP without a license.  It doesn't grant a license to distribute
others' work that happens to include your contributions.

I think it's quite likely that there's plenty of technical
infringement of copyright going on, but from a practical perspective,
it's incredibly unlikely anyone would try to enforce their copyrights
in game documents.  And it's also possible that Peter Suber holds the
copyright and all of the derivative works based on his initial ruleset
are un-copyrightable as unauthorized derivatives.

It would probably be safest to include an explicit grant of license in
a future nomic if you're really worried about such things, but trying
to track down all of the contributors to get a license for the
existing ruleset would be kind of pointless.

Re: DIS: RE: protection racket CFJ

[Geoffrey Spear]

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> for a pledge, all first-class persons should be witnesses by default.
>
> Seems like a good idea. Witnesses should also be barred from judging
> related equity cases.

The two of those together would bar everyone from judging equity cases
involving pledges.

Re: DIS: New agoranomic.org page

[Joshua Boehme]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:50:02 -0500
Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Thursday 23 October 2008 11:03:50 pm Sgeo wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 11:35 PM, Ed Murphy
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > May I host the Agoran Coat of Arms, or may I link to your copy, or
> > should I just remove the image?
> 
> This raises some interesting questions. What is the copyright status, 
> in various national jurisdictions, of the Ruleset? the text of 
> game-action messages? judicial rulings and arguments? DF messages? 
> derivative works of the above?
> 
> In the US, new works are copyright and unlicensed by default, and I 
> suspect international standards may be similar; yet our community 
> standards generally allow the creation of derivative works (e.g., 
> judgements citing precedent, amended Rules, web-accessible 
> databases).
> 
> Do all these things fall under fair use? Or are we creating some sort 
> of tacit license for each other by playing the game? What, exactly, 
> is going on here?
> 
> And how can the question be CFJed in a way that won't just come back 
> IRRELEVANT?

I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the Ruleset has multiple authors. 
Would there be a distinction between the legal rights of someone who has 
contributed versus a player who hasn't? What if a player contributed to the 
Ruleset, but eir contributions have subsequently been removed? (Those questions 
probably only make sense if we disregard any implied license.)

-- 

Elysion

Re: DIS: New agoranomic.org page

[Elliott Hird]

On 24 Oct 2008, at 07:42, Ian Kelly wrote:


GreyKnight both came up with the heraldry and created the image.  Eir
domain appears to be gone, but eir email was yahoo, and I assume it
probably still works.



I had luck contacting him via MemoServ on freenode (e was apparently  
an #esoteric

denizen in '06.)

--
ehird

DIS: Re: BUS: How to really annoy comex

[Ian Kelly]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 2:33 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree to the following contract, called "Not a rule really":
> {{{
> This is a public contract and a pledge.
> ais523 CAN terminate this contract by announcement.
>
> The
> Rule /0 (Power=4)
> Dictatorship
> ais523 may change the rules by announcement.
> is a fixed asset, whose recordkeepor is the Rulekeepor; there is always
> exactly one of it in existence, owned by the Lost and Found Department.
> }}}
>
> I note that the existence of this asset is now part of the SLR, and it
> is confusingly-named, just for fun. (However, this doesn't mean that
> it's a rule, we just have a rule-like object at the end of the SLR to
> confuse people trying to read it. It isn't in the FLR, because the
> Rulekeepor is a high-priority office.)

Just because this and the SLR are both part of the Rulekeepor's report
doesn't mean they have to be published together.

-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Tweak veracity

[Ian Kelly]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:45 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Such a statement is a Henkin statement, if I remember correctly.

Henkin sentence.  Close enough.

-root