Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: sheer cruelty (and lots of points)
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 11:48 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I retract all my votes on Proposals 5842-5941, and I vote FOR each of them. Do you really think an equity judgment in the Artistry contract would be worse than rewarding that spamathon? comex has blatantly ignored eir obligations under the Vote Market contract, why help em out by not ignoring your obligations under eir similar contract?
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5841-5941
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 20:33:10 -0700
Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I CFJ on the statement, The proposal submitted by root at or around
Wed, 5 Nov 2008 22:03:48 UTC has been distributed.
Arguments:
The proposal was submitted with this title:
{{{
2001
A Space Odyssey
}}}
The Promotor distributed a similar proposal with the title
2001 A Space Odyssey.
Game custom and precedent (CFJ 1546) hold that the Rulekeepor and
Promotor are able to non-substantively alter the text and formatting
of rules and proposals, respectively, as needed. However, these
precedents were based in part upon Rule 1339/6, which read:
Exact precision is required in the specification of Rule
Changes; any ambiguity or irregularity in the specification of a
Rule Change causes it to be void and without effect.
Counter-argument: the variation is in the title of the Rule Change, not the
Rule Change itself.
--
Elysion
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 assigned to ais523
On 6 Nov 2008, at 03:08, Roger Hicks wrote: Whatever the case, I think Wooble and ehird's mousetrap was perfectly fair. Perhaps the mousetrapped should have their CFJ rights preserved (including equity) but beyond that I hold myself responsible for not better monitoring the Protection Racket's amendment method. I also hold Wooble and ehird responsible. Tonight, the Godfather settles his debts: Oh you're so clever. The blame rests solely on Wooble for refusing to support my motion to stop this due to wanting someone to fill your ticket first. I transfer 5VP to Murphy I am very surprised you would be party to such a thing, Murphy. I transfer 5VP to Taral You too, Taral. Godfather BobTHJ -- ehird
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: protection
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 06:46, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend to leave the Protection Racket agreement. I transfer 50 coins to BobTHJ. And if that failed, I PBA-deposit an X crop and then transfer 50 coins to BobTHJ (the recordkeepor of the PBA seems to think I have 89 coins, but I'm not convinced this will turn out to be right when the banks change their reported holdings Yet Again. Would you accept randomly fluctuating balances listed by your real bank?) ehird's PBA report is significantly off. I'm not quite sure how this happened since our reports were in agreement just two days ago, though I think it has something to do with ehird's script: ehird, from what I gather, your script begins with the initial state of the PBA, and then calculates each transaction in order to arrive at the final current state. Is this correct? The problem with this method is that when you make a change in how the script operates it modifies transactions which have occurred in the past, since each transaction is re-calculated each time the script runs. This leads to fluctuation in the final numbers. The method I have employed for my automated site is to hold a copy of the current gamestate, and then apply each new transaction to that as it occurs (well, as it is entered), updating the current gamestate. This way, if I make a change to my code it is only reflected in future transactions, not past ones. It is still a simple matter to correct errors in past gamestate by backing off transactions, fixing the error, and then re-processing them. Whatever the case, I'm at a loss of how to process Wooble's latest transactions. You say e has 89 coins, and therefore can pay me 50. I say e has 19, so it fails (or is a partial transfer - a whole 'nother ball o' wax). We need to ensure our reports stay in agreementotherwise I'm not sure if this multiple recordkeepor's thing is going to work. (NOTE: Ignore Wooble's transaction on my automated log. I entered it, but it won't display correctly until ehird and I reconcile our reports and figure out exactly what happened). BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: protection
On 6 Nov 2008, at 15:11, Roger Hicks wrote: otherwise I'm not sure if this multiple recordkeepor's thing is going to work. I don't recall advocating it, either. On 6 Nov 2008, at 15:11, Roger Hicks wrote: (NOTE: Ignore Wooble's transaction on my automated log. I entered it, but it won't display correctly until ehird and I reconcile our reports and figure out exactly what happened). I believe it is the conflict of the PBA's exactness-requirements and the RBoA's looseness. Perhaps the RBoA policy could change to require exactness for cases like these? IMO, it's a more reasonable policy... but I'm open to discussion. As long as you de-mousetrap me. -- ehird
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: protection
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 08:11, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 06:46, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend to leave the Protection Racket agreement. I transfer 50 coins to BobTHJ. And if that failed, I PBA-deposit an X crop and then transfer 50 coins to BobTHJ (the recordkeepor of the PBA seems to think I have 89 coins, but I'm not convinced this will turn out to be right when the banks change their reported holdings Yet Again. Would you accept randomly fluctuating balances listed by your real bank?) ehird's PBA report is significantly off. I'm not quite sure how this happened since our reports were in agreement just two days ago, though I think it has something to do with ehird's script: Evidence - Wooble's first four transactions with the PBA (copied from the current PBA log). According to the log, I have noted the number of coins Wooble would have after each transaction: 2008-10-15 15:29 -- Wooble joins. 2008-10-15 15:29 -- Wooble deposits 2 0 crops for ^23. 2008-10-15 15:29 -- Wooble withdraws a 8 crop for ^13. 10 2008-10-17 16:29 -- Wooble deposits a C credit for ^17. 2008-10-17 16:29 -- Wooble withdraws a 9 crop for ^15. 12 2008-10-19 18:34 -- Wooble deposits 10 0 crops for ^75. 2008-10-19 18:34 -- Wooble transfers ^75 to RBoA. 12 2008-10-22 15:34 -- Wooble withdraws a 5 crop for ^15. (originally wanted 5, but the bank didn't have that much) -3 This obviously doesn't work. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: protection
On 6 Nov 2008, at 15:18, Roger Hicks wrote: Evidence - Wooble's first four transactions with the PBA (copied from the current PBA log). According to the log, I have noted the number of coins Wooble would have after each transaction: 2008-10-15 15:29 -- Wooble joins. 2008-10-15 15:29 -- Wooble deposits 2 0 crops for ^23. 2008-10-15 15:29 -- Wooble withdraws a 8 crop for ^13. 10 2008-10-17 16:29 -- Wooble deposits a C credit for ^17. 2008-10-17 16:29 -- Wooble withdraws a 9 crop for ^15. 12 2008-10-19 18:34 -- Wooble deposits 10 0 crops for ^75. 2008-10-19 18:34 -- Wooble transfers ^75 to RBoA. 12 2008-10-22 15:34 -- Wooble withdraws a 5 crop for ^15. (originally wanted 5, but the bank didn't have that much) -3 This obviously doesn't work. BobTHJ Hm. That is weird indeed. See, this should work fine: the RBoA transactions are liberal but the rest are conservative, just like it's always been: if target == 'RBoA': while comrades[person] amount: note = originally tried to transfer ^%i but doesn't have that much % (orig_amount,) amount -= 1 say_amount = '^%i' % (amount,) else: if comrades[person] amount: fails = True note = 'only has ^%i' % (comrades[person],) So... I really have no idea. -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: protection
On 6 Nov 2008, at 15:37, Roger Hicks wrote: I'm not sure either. Can we ratify the gamestate of the PBA to what my report would show at 00:00 on Nov 6 (just prior to Wooble's most recent transaction)? Then you can use whatever policy you wish going forward (there should be no further direct RBOA transactions, so no more special casing), and I'll ensure my recordkeeping conforms to your policy. Well, I'd like to find out what in my program is causing minus numbers of coins. *codes* -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: protection
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 08:23, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hm. That is weird indeed. See, this should work fine: the RBoA transactions are liberal but the rest are conservative, just like it's always been: if target == 'RBoA': while comrades[person] amount: note = originally tried to transfer ^%i but doesn't have that much % (orig_amount,) amount -= 1 say_amount = '^%i' % (amount,) else: if comrades[person] amount: fails = True note = 'only has ^%i' % (comrades[person],) So... I really have no idea. I'm not sure either. Can we ratify the gamestate of the PBA to what my report would show at 00:00 on Nov 6 (just prior to Wooble's most recent transaction)? Then you can use whatever policy you wish going forward (there should be no further direct RBOA transactions, so no more special casing), and I'll ensure my recordkeeping conforms to your policy. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: protection
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 08:18, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6 Nov 2008, at 15:11, Roger Hicks wrote: I believe it is the conflict of the PBA's exactness-requirements and the RBoA's looseness. Perhaps the RBoA policy could change to require exactness for cases like these? IMO, it's a more reasonable policy... but I'm open to discussion. I'm fine with handling PBA related transactions in whatever manner you dictate as PBA recordkeepor for all future transactions*. However, we have to have a clear policy in place and a starting point where we are both in agreement as to asset holdings and rates. * = This is my reasoning behind changing the RBOA to stop direct bank-to-bank transactions. My intention is to create a third party intermediary to handle these transactions thus allowing both banks to preserve their respective policies while still allowing for inter-bank fun. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: protection
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 08:51, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6 Nov 2008, at 15:42, Roger Hicks wrote: With the support of the people, I intend to ratify the coin holdings and PBA exchange rates as of Nov 6 2008 00:01 (just after the daily exchange rate change) as follows: Um, you can't ratify things with the support of the people. Only without objection. I object, just let me fix the bug. That's all it is. A contract should be able to ratify its own internal gamestate using whatever method it desires. However, if you think you can fix whatever bug is causing this issue then I'll wait. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: in the spirit of the recent Democratic electoral victory
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I support. With two support, I call an Emergency Session. I intend to filibuster proposals 5842-5941 with two support. I object. The Emergency Rule exists to prevent Invasion; but we are not being invaded. Merely minorly scammed. If you don't want points, then vote AGAINST the proposals.
Re: DIS: [Fwd: RE: Proposal: Expanded foreign relations]
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Original Message From: Tristan Glark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:RE: Proposal: Expanded foreign relations Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 12:29:44 + Thank you for your interest in the Aerican Empire. Having reviewed all information available to me on your website, I regret that this time the Empire cannot offer recognition to you. The reasons for this are explained below, and I invite you to respond with any counter-arguments you may have to any point as nothing would make me happier than to reverse my decision. 1) You state quite clearly on your site that you are a game which acts like a nation. The Empire, not being a game, does not see how we could recognise you as an equivalent state or nation. As an aside, you may find that your proposals are greeted more warmly if you compose them in better language. While I am familiar with Nomic and thus was able to make some sense of your initial letter, anyone who was unfamiliar with nomic would have had to spend many minutes in research simply to understand what it was you were requesting. This sort of thing predisposes others unfavourably to you before they have even considered your proposal. Tristan Glark, Head of the Diplomacy and Foreign Ministry of the Aerican Empire, Governor of Mars Colony http://www.aericanempire.com Diplomacy is the weapon of the civilized warrior -Attila the Hun Messenger wants to send you on a trip. Enter today. http://www.messengerbuddies.ca/?ocid=BUDDYOMATICENCA21 I suggest flipping the Aerican Empire's recognition to Hostile. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: in the spirit of the recent Democratic electoral victory
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 9:28 AM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I support. With two support, I call an Emergency Session. I intend to filibuster proposals 5842-5941 with two support. I object. The Emergency Rule exists to prevent Invasion; but we are not being invaded. Merely minorly scammed. If you don't want points, then vote AGAINST the proposals. That's what it's meant for. That doesn't mean we can't use it for something else. Consider it a counter-scam, if you want. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: in the spirit of the recent Democratic electoral victory
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, comex wrote: On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I support. With two support, I call an Emergency Session. I intend to filibuster proposals 5842-5941 with two support. I object. The Emergency Rule exists to prevent Invasion; but we are not being invaded. Merely minorly scammed. If you don't want points, then vote AGAINST the proposals. Points come by scam? No fun unless credible Fight attempt.
DIS: [Fwd: RE: Proposal: Expanded foreign relations]
Original Message From: Tristan Glark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:RE: Proposal: Expanded foreign relations Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 12:29:44 + Thank you for your interest in the Aerican Empire. Having reviewed all information available to me on your website, I regret that this time the Empire cannot offer recognition to you. The reasons for this are explained below, and I invite you to respond with any counter-arguments you may have to any point as nothing would make me happier than to reverse my decision. 1) You state quite clearly on your site that you are a game which acts like a nation. The Empire, not being a game, does not see how we could recognise you as an equivalent state or nation. As an aside, you may find that your proposals are greeted more warmly if you compose them in better language. While I am familiar with Nomic and thus was able to make some sense of your initial letter, anyone who was unfamiliar with nomic would have had to spend many minutes in research simply to understand what it was you were requesting. This sort of thing predisposes others unfavourably to you before they have even considered your proposal. Tristan Glark, Head of the Diplomacy and Foreign Ministry of the Aerican Empire, Governor of Mars Colony http://www.aericanempire.com Diplomacy is the weapon of the civilized warrior -Attila the Hun Messenger wants to send you on a trip. Enter today. http://www.messengerbuddies.ca/?ocid=BUDDYOMATICENCA21
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: protection
On 6 Nov 2008, at 16:21, Roger Hicks wrote: A contract should be able to ratify its own internal gamestate using whatever method it desires. However, if you think you can fix whatever bug is causing this issue then I'll wait. Yes, it was a knock-on effect of fixing a previous bug. Oops... The code should be relatively stable now, and is using as-much-as- possible transfers (since Agora seems to use them mostly anyway.). I do believe that the current output on the site is correct and therefore should not change unless there is some huge thing I am missing. -- ehird
DIS: Re: BUS: Now *this* is a futures market
On 6 Nov 2008, at 17:01, Ed Murphy wrote: For the purpose of this message, to flip a Credit is to perform the following actions if and only if it would result in a net increase in my Coin holdings: 1) RBoA-withdraw a Credit of that pitch 2) PBA-deposit that Credit 3) RBoA-deposit the minimum number of Coins needed to gain at least as many Chits as were spent in step 1 Unless you can give me a reasonable argument for this to be accepted I'm treating it as ineffective for not being clearly specified enough because if I allow unrestricted conditionals that would allow people to condition on turing complete or undecidable things. -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: protection
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 10:06, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6 Nov 2008, at 16:21, Roger Hicks wrote: A contract should be able to ratify its own internal gamestate using whatever method it desires. However, if you think you can fix whatever bug is causing this issue then I'll wait. Yes, it was a knock-on effect of fixing a previous bug. Oops... The code should be relatively stable now, and is using as-much-as-possible transfers (since Agora seems to use them mostly anyway.). I do believe that the current output on the site is correct and therefore should not change unless there is some huge thing I am missing. OK, except this makes things even more screwy, because you just changed all these past transactions again. Take this for an example: 2008-10-22 15:34 -- Wooble attempts to withdraw a 5 crop for ^15. (fails, Wooble does not have enough coins to withdraw even 1 (needs ^15 but has ^12)) By your new script, this fails. Yet previously you had always shown this as succeeding. The AAA has treated this withdraw as a success since 10/22, so for you to change it now would require a complete re-calculation of the AAA, and subsequently the RBOA, and subsequently Vote Market, PRS, Note Exchange, etc. The past has to stay in the past. You can handle future transactions however you would like, but past transactions can't be subject to change. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Now *this* is a futures market
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 10:09, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6 Nov 2008, at 17:01, Ed Murphy wrote: For the purpose of this message, to flip a Credit is to perform the following actions if and only if it would result in a net increase in my Coin holdings: 1) RBoA-withdraw a Credit of that pitch 2) PBA-deposit that Credit 3) RBoA-deposit the minimum number of Coins needed to gain at least as many Chits as were spent in step 1 Unless you can give me a reasonable argument for this to be accepted I'm treating it as ineffective for not being clearly specified enough because if I allow unrestricted conditionals that would allow people to condition on turing complete or undecidable things. I'm in agreement. This is a pain to work out from an automation perspective. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: protection
On 6 Nov 2008, at 17:15, Roger Hicks wrote: The AAA has treated this withdraw as a success since 10/22, so for you to change it now would require a complete re-calculation of the AAA, and subsequently the RBOA, and subsequently Vote Market, PRS, Note Exchange, etc. Here I was thinking automated systems are good because they can handle knock-on effects. It's why I wrote mine, after all. -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Now *this* is a futures market
On 6 Nov 2008, at 17:18, Roger Hicks wrote: I'm in agreement. This is a pain to work out from an automation perspective. Shoulda used Prolog. -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: protection
On 6 Nov 2008, at 17:18, Elliott Hird wrote: Here I was thinking automated systems are good because they can handle knock-on effects. It's why I wrote mine, after all. Worth noting: It's not even a change of policy. It's just the fixing of a bug that would have given Wooble something e could not have. If you insist, I guess I could make it calculate things in a broken way. -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Now *this* is a futures market
On 6 Nov 2008, at 17:09, Elliott Hird wrote: Unless you can give me a reasonable argument for this to be accepted I'm treating it as ineffective for not being clearly specified enough because if I allow unrestricted conditionals that would allow people to condition on turing complete or undecidable things. If I am convinced, by the way, I request BobTHJ, if e can, to connect to IRC on irc.freenode.net and start a private query with ehird so that we can work this out without 5,000 list messages. But I really don't think it works/should work. -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: protection
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 10:38, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6 Nov 2008, at 17:18, Elliott Hird wrote: Here I was thinking automated systems are good because they can handle knock-on effects. It's why I wrote mine, after all. Worth noting: It's not even a change of policy. It's just the fixing of a bug that would have given Wooble something e could not have. If you insist, I guess I could make it calculate things in a broken way. I don't mind recalculating a recent transaction (within the last day or two) if its clear that there was a bug or error in implementation. I'm opposed, however, to recalculating over two weeks of gamestate in eight different contracts to fix an error. In order to fix these problems, here's what we need: 1. We need a unified gamestate, and we honestly can't afford to wait for a four-day without objection ratification process to complete. We need to decide on something and sync things up today, then ratify that. 2. We need to ensure that once a transaction reaches a certain age it is not re-calculated, even if there was a bug or processing error. 3. If you realize there is a bug in your script and you re-process a transaction with a new result, I need to know about it so I can update my records as well. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: [Fwd: RE: Proposal: Expanded foreign relations]
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) You state quite clearly on your site that you are a game which acts like a nation. The Empire, not being a game, does not see how we could recognise you as an equivalent state or nation. Not a game? Could have fooled me... -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Now *this* is a futures market
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shoulda used Prolog. Did you? -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: sheer cruelty (and lots of points)
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6 Nov 2008, at 01:13, Ian Kelly wrote: I object to all dependent actions that were buried in comex's message titled sheer cruelty (and lots of points). There are none, as far as I can tell. Same here. I ran it through a regex, and it really is just 98 instances of the same template. -root
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 assigned to ais523
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 5:00 AM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I transfer 5VP to Taral You too, Taral. Bah, hardly. I have significant investments at stake. -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Now *this* is a futures market
On 6 Nov 2008, at 18:14, Taral wrote: Did you? Y- no. -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Now *this* is a futures market
ehird wrote: On 6 Nov 2008, at 17:01, Ed Murphy wrote: For the purpose of this message, to flip a Credit is to perform the following actions if and only if it would result in a net increase in my Coin holdings: 1) RBoA-withdraw a Credit of that pitch 2) PBA-deposit that Credit 3) RBoA-deposit the minimum number of Coins needed to gain at least as many Chits as were spent in step 1 Unless you can give me a reasonable argument for this to be accepted I'm treating it as ineffective for not being clearly specified enough because if I allow unrestricted conditionals that would allow people to condition on turing complete or undecidable things. Fallacy of the excluded middle. You're well within your rights to allow only reasonable conditionals. Anyway, unless y'all are revising history Yet Again (or have both failed to record some recent and relevant changes), each of the trios (except the I think this fails ones) should evaluate as follows: 1) RBoA-withdraw the Credit for 50 chits 2) PBA-deposit the Credit for the stated number of coins 3) RBoA-deposit 10 coins for 50 chits
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: protection
BobTHJ wrote: 1. We need a unified gamestate, and we honestly can't afford to wait for a four-day without objection ratification process to complete. We need to decide on something and sync things up today, then ratify that. Proto-proto: Velocity is a contract switch, tracked by the Notary, with values Slow (default) and Fast. Anyone can flip to Fast w/o objection, anyone can flip to Slow w/o 3 objections. Amend R2201 so that asset reports for Fast contracts ratify one day after publication. Update your automation to publish a daily auto-report along the lines of the following (in some order): transactions 24 to 48 hours old summary of status as of 24 hours ago transactions 0 to 24 hours old summary of status as of now, disclaimered
DIS: Platonic PBA
Proto: Failing transactions that are not noticed quickly enough still affect rates coin count, but you SHALL NOT do them. -- ehird
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5833-5840
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: AGAINST, very much so. There are probably private pledges that existed decades ago which I've never seen, that were published, and never technically ended. This would force me to track them. Pledges have only existed since January. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: in the spirit of the recent Democratic electoral victory
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:31 -0700, Ian Kelly wrote: On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And with necessary support, I filibuster 5842-5941. I intend, with 4 supporting senators, to end these filibusters. I post the following Sell Ticket: * Cost: 15 VP * Action: Cause myself and two other first-class senators to support these attempts to end the filibusters on proposals 5842-5941. I affirm that I have contracts with two other first-class senators of the form: Senators don't have to be first-class to break filibusters, do they? The rule says with four supporting senators. Maybe I'll go and bribe some partnerships, it's probably cheaper. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: in the spirit of the recent Democratic electoral victory
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:40 -0700, Ian Kelly wrote: On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:31 -0700, Ian Kelly wrote: On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And with necessary support, I filibuster 5842-5941. I intend, with 4 supporting senators, to end these filibusters. I post the following Sell Ticket: * Cost: 15 VP * Action: Cause myself and two other first-class senators to support these attempts to end the filibusters on proposals 5842-5941. I affirm that I have contracts with two other first-class senators of the form: Senators don't have to be first-class to break filibusters, do they? The rule says with four supporting senators. Maybe I'll go and bribe some partnerships, it's probably cheaper. Only first-class players can support dependent actions, period. What dependent action? Read rule 1728(a). -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: in the spirit of the recent Democratic electoral victory
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 19:44 +, Alex Smith wrote: On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:40 -0700, Ian Kelly wrote: On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:31 -0700, Ian Kelly wrote: On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And with necessary support, I filibuster 5842-5941. I intend, with 4 supporting senators, to end these filibusters. I post the following Sell Ticket: * Cost: 15 VP * Action: Cause myself and two other first-class senators to support these attempts to end the filibusters on proposals 5842-5941. I affirm that I have contracts with two other first-class senators of the form: Senators don't have to be first-class to break filibusters, do they? The rule says with four supporting senators. Maybe I'll go and bribe some partnerships, it's probably cheaper. Only first-class players can support dependent actions, period. What dependent action? Read rule 1728(a). My point is: the filibuster rule is not a dependent action, according to rule 1728. Therefore, if it works at all, it works due to the ordinary English meaning of what it says. with 2 supporting Senators is with 2 supporting Senators, no firstclassness mentioned or implied anywhere... -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: protection
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:52 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote:
I agree to the following pledge/contract if ehird also does:
{
1. The name of this pledge / contract is the InterBank Reconciliation
Agreement
2. Upon the inception of this agreement, BobTHJ SHALL modify eir PBA
report to reflect the values displayed currently on ehird's PBA
report. ehird SHALL then publish and attempt to ratify that report.
3. The results of any PBA related transaction older than 7 days SHALL
NOT be modified even if errors are later detected in that transaction.
}
I don't get what number 3 means here. Do you mean that all PBA
transaction results should self-ratify? If so, I agree.
--
ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: protection
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:54, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:52 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote:
I agree to the following pledge/contract if ehird also does:
{
1. The name of this pledge / contract is the InterBank Reconciliation
Agreement
2. Upon the inception of this agreement, BobTHJ SHALL modify eir PBA
report to reflect the values displayed currently on ehird's PBA
report. ehird SHALL then publish and attempt to ratify that report.
3. The results of any PBA related transaction older than 7 days SHALL
NOT be modified even if errors are later detected in that transaction.
}
I don't get what number 3 means here. Do you mean that all PBA
transaction results should self-ratify? If so, I agree.
More or less. They do self-ratify if published already, but this is
just an agreement between ehird and myself that we won't modify
transactions older than 7 days for the sake of recordkeeping.
BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: in the spirit of the recent Democratic electoral victory
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:31 -0700, Ian Kelly wrote: On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And with necessary support, I filibuster 5842-5941. I intend, with 4 supporting senators, to end these filibusters. I post the following Sell Ticket: * Cost: 15 VP * Action: Cause myself and two other first-class senators to support these attempts to end the filibusters on proposals 5842-5941. I affirm that I have contracts with two other first-class senators of the form: Senators don't have to be first-class to break filibusters, do they? The rule says with four supporting senators. Maybe I'll go and bribe some partnerships, it's probably cheaper. Only first-class players can support dependent actions, period. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: in the spirit of the recent Democratic electoral victory
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote: My point is: the filibuster rule is not a dependent action, according to rule 1728. Therefore, if it works at all, it works due to the ordinary English meaning of what it says. with 2 supporting Senators is with 2 supporting Senators, no firstclassness mentioned or implied anywhere... So we have a question of whether supporting senators is a reasonable R754(a) grammatical map to with N support (restricted to senators) or whether some common definition of supporting senators must be assumed. I'd strongly favor R754(a). In addition to that clause taking precedence over the common language clause, game custom is strongly in support of with N support[suffix] [of] [subclass of dependent-action- capable entities] being a dependent action; for one thing several contracts would break if we broke this link. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: in the spirit of the recent Democratic electoral victory
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My point is: the filibuster rule is not a dependent action, according to rule 1728. Therefore, if it works at all, it works due to the ordinary English meaning of what it says. with 2 supporting Senators is with 2 supporting Senators, no firstclassness mentioned or implied anywhere... with 2 supporting Senators == with 2 Support; supporters must be Senators -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: in the spirit of the recent Democratic electoral victory
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:11 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote: My point is: the filibuster rule is not a dependent action, according to rule 1728. Therefore, if it works at all, it works due to the ordinary English meaning of what it says. with 2 supporting Senators is with 2 supporting Senators, no firstclassness mentioned or implied anywhere... So we have a question of whether supporting senators is a reasonable R754(a) grammatical map to with N support (restricted to senators) or whether some common definition of supporting senators must be assumed. I'd strongly favor R754(a). In addition to that clause taking precedence over the common language clause, game custom is strongly in support of with N support[suffix] [of] [subclass of dependent-action- capable entities] being a dependent action; for one thing several contracts would break if we broke this link. Contracts can't contain dependent actions, period. I treat contracts defining dependent actions as using an obvious abbreviation this action works much the same way as the rules define dependent actions; in such a case, varying the dependent action text works fine, as it's only an abbreviation anyway. As for the rules, the rules are the rules, and less flexible than contracts. Also, the fact it says with 2 supporting Senators not with 2 Senate Support is further evidence that it works that way; senate Support would have been a much more sensible wording. I also seem to remember a proto a while back that would have meant that panels of 5 senators would have been what was required to break a filibuster; I can't find it, but if I remember correctly nobody was trying to add first-class to that. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: [PBA] Coinkeepor's report
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:56, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All times in UTC. Last update: 2008-11-06 19:55 My PBA report is now in sync with yours. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Now *this* is a futures market
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:31, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unless you can give me a reasonable argument for this to be accepted I'm treating it as ineffective for not being clearly specified enough because if I allow unrestricted conditionals that would allow people to condition on turing complete or undecidable things. Fallacy of the excluded middle. You're well within your rights to allow only reasonable conditionals. Anyway, unless y'all are revising history Yet Again (or have both failed to record some recent and relevant changes), each of the trios (except the I think this fails ones) should evaluate as follows: 1) RBoA-withdraw the Credit for 50 chits 2) PBA-deposit the Credit for the stated number of coins 3) RBoA-deposit 10 coins for 50 chits I will process this if ehird wishes to do so, otherwise I am considering this entire transaction to fail (now that we are back in sync it matters not to me which way this one goes). BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: in the spirit of the recent Democratic electoral victory
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also, the fact it says with 2 supporting Senators not with 2 Senate Support is further evidence that it works that way; senate Support would have been a much more sensible wording. A difference in ... grammar ... is inconsequential in all forms of communication, as long as the difference does not create an ambiguity in meaning. There is no more an ambiguity in meaning here than there is when somebody announces I go on hold as opposed to I perform the action 'to go on old'. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: in the spirit of the recent Democratic electoral victory
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no more an ambiguity in meaning here than there is when somebody announces I go on hold as opposed to I perform the action 'to go on old'. Upon further reflection, I don't think any of these interpretations fixes anything. The default is with N first-class player supports. This is with N Senator supports. Still allows second-class support. -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
DIS: Re: BUS: in the spirit of the recent Democratic electoral victory
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:35 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend, with 4 supporting senators, to end these filibusters. Eh, why not? It's just points. I support all of these intents. It's 1000 points per week... -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: in the spirit of the recent Democratic electoral victory
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote: As for the rules, the rules are the rules, and less flexible than contracts. And this is in those Rules: (1) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is inconsequential in all forms of communication, as long as the difference does not create an ambiguity in meaning. I would say that root's simple mapping e posted earlier is common-sense mapping and avoids ambiguity, especially given: (2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules by default has that meaning, as do its ordinary-language synonyms not explicitly defined by the rules. Obviously you don't, so another one for the courts. But don't obfuscate it, it's just a question on how ambiguous in R754(1) terms this particular grammatical perturbation is. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: in the spirit of the recent Democratic electoral victory
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's 1000 points per week... So points reset every week until it's fixed by a proposal. Problem? -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: in the spirit of the recent Democratic electoral victory
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Taral wrote: Upon further reflection, I don't think any of these interpretations fixes anything. The default is with N first-class player supports. This is with N Senator supports. Still allows second-class support. R2124 makes non-first-class players incapable of giving/expressing support. Strangely enough, they can still perform the action, they just can't be supporters of it. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: in the spirit of the recent Democratic electoral victory
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no more an ambiguity in meaning here than there is when somebody announces I go on hold as opposed to I perform the action 'to go on old'. Upon further reflection, I don't think any of these interpretations fixes anything. The default is with N first-class player supports. This is with N Senator supports. Still allows second-class support. R2124 only allows further restriction on the eligibility of supporters, not redefinition, and it takes precedence over R2177. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I still suck at this sort of thing, but
On 6 Nov 2008, at 20:28, Roger Hicks wrote: I resolve the above Bank Motion. APPROVE BobTHJ (2234) Taral (2224) DISAPPROVE none I hereby remove the RBOA's rate for Coins. Umm... So much for that email I sent you. -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: in the spirit of the recent Democratic electoral victory
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Taral wrote: Upon further reflection, I don't think any of these interpretations fixes anything. The default is with N first-class player supports. This is with N Senator supports. Still allows second-class support. R2124 makes non-first-class players incapable of giving/expressing support. Strangely enough, they can still perform the action, they just can't be supporters of it. -Goethe There may be cases when non-first-class players need to be able to perform dependent actions, such as when they hold particular offices. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: in the spirit of the recent Democratic electoral victory
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Taral wrote: On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's 1000 points per week... So points reset every week until it's fixed by a proposal. Problem? Not really. (unless you're doing all that trading, massive devaluation?) but we might as well get the proposal in now; how many wins do we want to award? Right now I'm really not bothering with Enigma, FRC, werewolf, or any real contests (e.g. interesting challenges) because, well, where's the award when points are so scammable? That's a loss for Agora IMO [er, not my participation per se but the attitude). Winning is too easy right now. It's boring (again IMO). -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: in the spirit of the recent Democratic electoral victory
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: R2124 makes non-first-class players incapable of giving/expressing support. Strangely enough, they can still perform the action, they just can't be supporters of it. -Goethe There may be cases when non-first-class players need to be able to perform dependent actions, such as when they hold particular offices. Oh good, I like it when a bug becomes a feature. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: in the spirit of the recent Democratic electoral victory
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:45 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Taral wrote: On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's 1000 points per week... So points reset every week until it's fixed by a proposal. Problem? Not really. (unless you're doing all that trading, massive devaluation?) but we might as well get the proposal in now; how many wins do we want to award? Right now I'm really not bothering with Enigma, FRC, werewolf, or any real contests (e.g. interesting challenges) because, well, where's the award when points are so scammable? That's a loss for Agora IMO [er, not my participation per se but the attitude). Winning is too easy right now. It's boring (again IMO). Not really, I had two non-scam wins by points in a row (probably with a scam win by points in between that was careful to put the points totals back again when it finished); that was via careful attempts to maximise my points scoring by any means possible. (I'm involved in most of the interesting contests atm, and I got the points that way.) I think what actually happened is that wins by points became a lot more common when I started trying for them; presumably, they would have become a lot more common if someone else had started trying for them, too. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: in the spirit of the recent Democratic electoral victory
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Taral wrote: On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Winning is too easy right now. It's boring (again IMO). Temporary setback. Patience is advised. This game has been running for a lng time. Oh I know, but it's run a long time due to tinkering (winning too easy and boring? make it harder/get rid of it/etc.). Consider this a trial balloon on whether it's tinker-time. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: in the spirit of the recent Democratic electoral victory
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 13:09 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Taral wrote: On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Winning is too easy right now. It's boring (again IMO). Temporary setback. Patience is advised. This game has been running for a lng time. Oh I know, but it's run a long time due to tinkering (winning too easy and boring? make it harder/get rid of it/etc.). Consider this a trial balloon on whether it's tinker-time. -G. I suggest you cut down the max point limits on contests, probably the easiest way. The problem is that until a while back, nobody had won by points for ages, and all the contests doubled or quadrupled their scoring, so points are plentiful nowadays. Forcing them to halve their limits again would be one of the easiest solutions. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I still suck at this sort of thing, but
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 13:43, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6 Nov 2008, at 20:28, Roger Hicks wrote: I resolve the above Bank Motion. APPROVE BobTHJ (2234) Taral (2224) DISAPPROVE none I hereby remove the RBOA's rate for Coins. Umm... So much for that email I sent you. Don't worry, I have something else in mind. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: in the spirit of the recent Democratic electoral victory
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Winning is too easy right now. It's boring (again IMO). Temporary setback. Patience is advised. This game has been running for a lng time. -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: in the spirit of the recent Democratic electoral victory
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote: I think what actually happened is that wins by points became a lot more common when I started trying for them; presumably, they would have become a lot more common if someone else had started trying for them, too. I think after all this time it's not the points rules per se but the partnership/contest/shell corporation rules are still profligate and subject to scamming in ways that are fundamentally (to me) uninteresting. Of course, I don't expect yet another root/Goethe proposal to dissolve the things will pass. One day. But I mean, if a scam is just look, I have an VI-1 of voters who don't care if this passes and will give me a win/patent title for a few VCs it's just not that clever. There's a million ways to get a win from an AI-1 proposal, so why is any given one any good or worth fighting more than oh e can pass a proposal when no one cares that much? -goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: in the spirit of the recent Democratic electoral victory
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote: I suggest you cut down the max point limits on contests, probably the easiest way. The problem is that until a while back, nobody had won by points for ages, and all the contests doubled or quadrupled their scoring, so points are plentiful nowadays. Forcing them to halve their limits again would be one of the easiest solutions. That doesn't fix the fact that the scams I'm talking about are from manipulating the contracts themselves, not from within-legitimate contest points awards. For the latter, I don't begrudge any wins certainly. Oh don't I owe you 2 Champions btw? -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: in the spirit of the recent Democratic electoral victory
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That doesn't fix the fact that the scams I'm talking about are from manipulating the contracts themselves, not from within-legitimate contest points awards. For the latter, I don't begrudge any wins certainly. Oh don't I owe you 2 Champions btw? Just secure contestmaster...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: in the spirit of the recent Democratic electoral victory
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 13:22 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote: I suggest you cut down the max point limits on contests, probably the easiest way. The problem is that until a while back, nobody had won by points for ages, and all the contests doubled or quadrupled their scoring, so points are plentiful nowadays. Forcing them to halve their limits again would be one of the easiest solutions. That doesn't fix the fact that the scams I'm talking about are from manipulating the contracts themselves, not from within-legitimate contest points awards. For the latter, I don't begrudge any wins certainly. Oh don't I owe you 2 Champions btw? At least 2, one by legislation and one legitimate win by points. There's a scam win by points which is still subject to CFJ (CFJ 2213, you're assigned to it btw) too. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Points Award (automated)
On 6 Nov 2008, at 21:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Per the AAA agreement, I attempt to award 4 points to Taral pls to be condensing into single message -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: in the spirit of the recent Democratic electoral victory
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suggest you cut down the max point limits on contests Wasn't part of it that we were in Overtime? -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Points Award (automated)
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 14:30, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6 Nov 2008, at 21:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Per the AAA agreement, I attempt to award 4 points to Taral pls to be condensing into single message Planning on it, just haven't had the chance yet. Also planning on referencing the related harvesting (both for this and for the random crops e-mails). BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: in the spirit of the recent Democratic electoral victory
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote: There's a scam win by points which is still subject to CFJ (CFJ 2213, you're assigned to it btw) too. Oh, you lose. ;P.
DIS: CFJ 2213 proto
[H. CotC, I may be a little late in judging this but I intend to later by tomorrow after comments.] The caller's argument hinges on the definition of action, however there is another consideration. R2192 says in part The Mad Scientist CAN act on behalf of the Monster to take any action that the Monster may take... and R2193 has been found to be the Monster. So what actions may R2193 *specifically* take? R2141 states that rules can *generally* govern the game, but can a *specific* rule (r2193) *actually* do something that is not currently contained in its text? Particularly, R105 states that an instrument can only generally make a rules change where permitted by other rules, and the general govern the game clause of R2141 is not necessarily permission. I cannot find a place where R2193 is specifically permitted by other rules, or itself, to make rules changes. And I find based on longstanding custom and the good of the game where the rules are silent (issues such as regulation aren't a direct issue as that limits persons, not rules, but the principle can provide guidance) that the permission must be specific. Therefore, the rules change in question did not take place. FALSE. [It's also possible to base this on an existence argument: What is a Rule? In the most Platonic basic sense, a Rule is its text. If a Rule's text doesn't say it may do something, doing that something is not part of its fundamental nature and it can't do it. Further, we are under no obligation to treat a Rule like a person and assume that a rule can do whatever is unregulated etc. For a rule to have fundamental meaning it must be so tied and limited to its text] -Goethe
Re: DIS: CFJ 2213 proto
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [It's also possible to base this on an existence argument: What is a Rule? In the most Platonic basic sense, a Rule is its text. If a Rule's text doesn't say it may do something, doing that something is not part of its fundamental nature and it can't do it. Further, we are under no obligation to treat a Rule like a person and assume that a rule can do whatever is unregulated etc. For a rule to have fundamental meaning it must be so tied and limited to its text] I proto-intend to appeal this judgement with 2 support, because it is not Agoran custom to sandbox rules like this. Also, eir two arguments are in conflict: if one Rule specifically permits someone to cause another Rule (which itself is silent) to effect Rule Changes, does it work? The quoted paragraph would imply no, but the Rule-based argument yes.
DIS: Re: BUS: Mass partnership support bug
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 5:06 PM, The PerlNomic Partnership [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The PNP supports all current intents to end a filibuster. Note that this was only sent now for timing reasons. I'd much prefer if one more real person supported this.
DIS: Proto: Complex scoring
Proto-Proposal: Complex scoring (AI = 2, please) Amend Rule 2179 (Points) to read: For each point axis: a) axis Points is a fixed currency. b) A player's axis coordinate is the number of axis points e owns. There are two point axes, X and Y. A player's score is x + iy, where x is eir X coordinate and y is eir Y coordinate. Ownership of points is restricted to players. If winning is secured, then changes to point holdings are secured with the same power threshold. The Scorekeepor is a high-priority office, and the recordkeepor of points. Amend Rule 2136 (Contests) by replacing this text: The total number of points a Contest MAY award in a given week is equal to 5 times the number of its members that are first- class players. Points up to this total CAN be awarded by the contestmaster to other members by public announcement, and MUST be awarded as explicitly described in the contract. The total number of points a Contest MAY revoke in a given week is equal to 2 times the number of its members that are first- class players. Points up to this total CAN be revoked by the contestmaster from other members by public announcement, and MUST be revoked as explicitly described in the contract. For each contest, ASAP after the beginning of each month, the Scorekeepor CAN and SHALL by announcement award a number of points, equal to the number of Players who were Contestants in that Contest at any time during the previous month, to the Player (if any) who was its Contestmaster for 16 or more days during the previous month, provided that the Contestmaster performed Contest-related duties in a timely manner during that time. with this text: For each point axis, the total number of axis points a contest CAN award in a given week is equal to 2 times the number of its members that are first-class players. axis points up to this total CAN be awarded by the contestmaster to other members by announcement, and SHALL be awarded as explicitly described in the contract. For each point axis, the total number of axis points a contest CAN revoke in a given week is equal to 2 times the number of its members that are first-class players. axis points up to this total CAN be revoked by the contestmaster to other members by announcement, and SHALL be revoked as explicitly described in the contract. For each contest, ASAP after the beginning of each month, the Scorekeepor CAN and SHALL by announcement award a number of points (choosing exactly one axis per contest), equal to the number of Players who were Contestants in that Contest at any time during the previous month, to the Player (if any) who was its Contestmaster for 16 or more days during the previous month, provided that the Contestmaster performed Contest-related duties in a timely manner during that time. Amend Rule 2187 (Win by High Score) by replacing this text: Upon a win announcement that one or more players have a score of at least 100 (specifying all such players), all those players satisfy the Winning Condition of High Score. Cleanup procedure: All those players have eir scores set to 0. All other players have eir scores set to floor(N*S/10), where N is eir previous score and S is the Score Index. with this text: Upon a win announcement that one or more players have a score whose absolute value is at least 100 (specifying all such players), all those players satisfy the Winning Condition of High Score. Cleanup procedure: All those players have eir scores set to 0. All other players have each of eir coordinates set to floor(P*S/10), where P is eir previous coordinate along that axis and S is the Score Index. Create a new rule titled Fractal Score Progression with Power 2 and this text: At the end of each week, for each player with non-real score, each of eir coordinates is set to the corresponding coordinate of P^2 + S (where P is eir previous score and S is the Score Index) rounded down to the nearest integer. Upon the adoption of this proposal, each player's score is set to sqrt(-P), where P is eir score immediately before the adoption of this proposal.
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: contesting
On Thursday 06 November 2008 12:39:25 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote: I CFJ on the following statement: A passed proposal CAN flip a switch to a value to which, by rule, the switch CANNOT be flipped. trivially true, could be power difference
Re: DIS: Proto: Complex scoring
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 15:51, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Proto-Proposal: Complex scoring (AI = 2, please) A little help for those of us who haven't looked at imaginary numbers since high school. I recall that sqrt(-1) = i, but how do you calculate sqrt(-p)? BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Proto: Complex scoring
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 16:08 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote: On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 15:51, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Proto-Proposal: Complex scoring (AI = 2, please) A little help for those of us who haven't looked at imaginary numbers since high school. I recall that sqrt(-1) = i, but how do you calculate sqrt(-p)? It's i times sqrt(p): sqrt(ab) = sqrt(a*b) so sqrt(p*-1) = sqrt(-1) * sqrt(p). -- ais523
Re: DIS: Proto: Complex scoring
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 23:10 +, Alex Smith wrote: sqrt(ab) = sqrt(a*b) This should say sqrt(a*b) = sqrt(a)*sqrt(b). -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Expanded foreign relations
I wrote: Proposal: Expanded foreign relations Before proceeding further with this effort, I should point out that I am not Agora's Ambassador (Rule 2148 prohibits false claims on this topic). That office is currently held by the PerlNomic Partnership, a legal person whose charter can be viewed at the following site: http://agora.eso-std.org/notary-report#perlnomic-partnership H. Foreign Minister Glark, if Agora adopted a rule explicitly claiming micronation status for itself (and the agoranomic.org web site were updated accordingly), would you then reverse your decision and support Aerican recognition of Agora? I also present for your review a map of Agora's territorial holdings, which I believe are comparable to the Aerican colony of Verden. This map can be viewed at the following site: http://agora.qoid.us/rule/2105
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: contesting
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Pavitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 06 November 2008 12:39:25 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote: I CFJ on the following statement: A passed proposal CAN flip a switch to a value to which, by rule, the switch CANNOT be flipped. trivially true, could be power difference I don't see why that should matter. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Expanded foreign relations
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Pavitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In recognition of the recent and mostly-successful export of the Monster to B Nomic, and in order to further enable trade relations with B, the Recognition of B Nomic is hereby flipped to Friendly. Not until they repeal Agoran Silly Hat Day. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: contesting
Pavitra wrote: On Thursday 06 November 2008 12:39:25 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote: I CFJ on the following statement: A passed proposal CAN flip a switch to a value to which, by rule, the switch CANNOT be flipped. trivially true, could be power difference While sufficiently powerful proposals can alter rules, they do not explicitly take precedence over the rules. There used to be a clause along the lines of adopted proposals take effect to the maximum extent permitted by the rules, but it got removed at some point.
Re: DIS: Proto: Complex scoring
2008/11/6 Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 23:10 +, Alex Smith wrote: sqrt(ab) = sqrt(a*b) This should say sqrt(a*b) = sqrt(a)*sqrt(b). -- Got it. So then, what is the absolute value of a complex number? BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Proto: Complex scoring
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For each point axis, the total number of axis points a contest CAN award in a given week is equal to 2 times the number of its members that are first-class players. axis points up to this total CAN be awarded by the contestmaster to other members by announcement, and SHALL be awarded as explicitly described in the contract. For each point axis, the total number of axis points a contest CAN revoke in a given week is equal to 2 times the number of its members that are first-class players. axis points up to this total CAN be revoked by the contestmaster to other members by announcement, and SHALL be revoked as explicitly described in the contract. For each contest, ASAP after the beginning of each month, the Scorekeepor CAN and SHALL by announcement award a number of points (choosing exactly one axis per contest), equal to the number of Players who were Contestants in that Contest at any time during the previous month, to the Player (if any) who was its Contestmaster for 16 or more days during the previous month, provided that the Contestmaster performed Contest-related duties in a timely manner during that time. How about assigning a specific axis to each contest, only allowing the contest to award / revoke points in its axis, and allowing players to be contestmasters of multiple contests as long as they're in different axes? Then maybe we could finally get rid of the PRS. And if a contestmaster really wanted eir contest to operate in multiple axes, e could just create one primary contest with a related umbrella contest for each additional axis. -root
Re: DIS: Proto: Complex scoring
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/11/6 Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 23:10 +, Alex Smith wrote: sqrt(ab) = sqrt(a*b) This should say sqrt(a*b) = sqrt(a)*sqrt(b). -- Got it. So then, what is the absolute value of a complex number? abs(a + bi) = sqrt(a^2 + b^2) -root
Re: DIS: Proto: Complex scoring
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 16:20 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote: 2008/11/6 Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 23:10 +, Alex Smith wrote: sqrt(ab) = sqrt(a*b) This should say sqrt(a*b) = sqrt(a)*sqrt(b). -- Got it. So then, what is the absolute value of a complex number? The square root of the sum of the square of the real part and the square of the imaginary part. |a+b*i| = sqrt(a**2 + b**2). -- ais523
Re: DIS: Proto: Complex scoring
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For each point axis, the total number of axis points a contest CAN award in a given week is equal to 2 times the number of its members that are first-class players. axis points up to this total CAN be awarded by the contestmaster to other members by announcement, and SHALL be awarded as explicitly described in the contract. For each point axis, the total number of axis points a contest CAN revoke in a given week is equal to 2 times the number of its members that are first-class players. axis points up to this total CAN be revoked by the contestmaster to other members by announcement, and SHALL be revoked as explicitly described in the contract. For each contest, ASAP after the beginning of each month, the Scorekeepor CAN and SHALL by announcement award a number of points (choosing exactly one axis per contest), equal to the number of Players who were Contestants in that Contest at any time during the previous month, to the Player (if any) who was its Contestmaster for 16 or more days during the previous month, provided that the Contestmaster performed Contest-related duties in a timely manner during that time. How about assigning a specific axis to each contest, only allowing the contest to award / revoke points in its axis, and allowing players to be contestmasters of multiple contests as long as they're in different axes? Then maybe we could finally get rid of the PRS. And if a contestmaster really wanted eir contest to operate in multiple axes, e could just create one primary contest with a related umbrella contest for each additional axis. Or better, assign a specific non-empty set of axes to each contest, and require that for each pair of contests of which a particular player is contestmaster, the intersection of axes is empty. -root
Re: DIS: Proto: Complex scoring
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 6:21 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For each point axis, the total number of axis points a contest CAN award in a given week is equal to 2 times the number of its members that are first-class players. axis points up to this total CAN be awarded by the contestmaster to other members by announcement, and SHALL be awarded as explicitly described in the contract. For each point axis, the total number of axis points a contest CAN revoke in a given week is equal to 2 times the number of its members that are first-class players. axis points up to this total CAN be revoked by the contestmaster to other members by announcement, and SHALL be revoked as explicitly described in the contract. For each contest, ASAP after the beginning of each month, the Scorekeepor CAN and SHALL by announcement award a number of points (choosing exactly one axis per contest), equal to the number of Players who were Contestants in that Contest at any time during the previous month, to the Player (if any) who was its Contestmaster for 16 or more days during the previous month, provided that the Contestmaster performed Contest-related duties in a timely manner during that time. How about assigning a specific axis to each contest, only allowing the contest to award / revoke points in its axis, and allowing players to be contestmasters of multiple contests as long as they're in different axes? Then maybe we could finally get rid of the PRS. And if a contestmaster really wanted eir contest to operate in multiple axes, e could just create one primary contest with a related umbrella contest for each additional axis. -root I like this, but some interaction between axes would be fun, imo (only if the associated contests opt-in). Also, should wins in such a system be based on absolute value, or do players have to win completely in one axis?
Re: DIS: Proto: Complex scoring
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 16:22, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/11/6 Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 23:10 +, Alex Smith wrote: sqrt(ab) = sqrt(a*b) This should say sqrt(a*b) = sqrt(a)*sqrt(b). -- Got it. So then, what is the absolute value of a complex number? abs(a + bi) = sqrt(a^2 + b^2) -root Thanks. I was a math whiz in high school. Real geeky kid. I took the knowledge bowl team to state. It's amazing what you can forget in 10 years. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Proto: Complex scoring
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also, should wins in such a system be based on absolute value, or do players have to win completely in one axis? Using absolute value, a win in one axis requires 100 points in that axis, but a balanced win in both axes is theoretically harder, requiring 71 points in each. I think that seems reasonable. -root
Re: DIS: Proto: Complex scoring
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also, should wins in such a system be based on absolute value, or do players have to win completely in one axis? Using absolute value, a win in one axis requires 100 points in that axis, but a balanced win in both axes is theoretically harder, requiring 71 points in each. I think that seems reasonable. -root both? I was under the impression that under your system, we would create an axis per contest..
Re: DIS: CFJ 2213 proto
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, comex wrote: I proto-intend to appeal this judgement with 2 support, because it is not Agoran custom to sandbox rules like this. Also, eir two arguments are in conflict: if one Rule specifically permits someone to cause another Rule (which itself is silent) to effect Rule Changes, does it work? The quoted paragraph would imply no, but the Rule-based argument yes. One major issue is that there is little precedent on the term generally that seems to pepper the rules nowadays. The point is that the rules don't *specifically* permit the given rule to ake the specific type of change. R2141 is a very diffuse definition of a Rule, that describes some general properties of what a rule *in general* *may* do. It is important to note that, while we can read may here as MAY, there is a pretty good argument for taking 'may' as 'might' in this context. So if we know that a Rule may do some things generally, the next step is to ask what a rule can do specifically: and I say that the basic definition is that a rule may do what's in its text, and what other Rules *explicitly* empower it to do. It's a tautology: without the Rule text, the Rules wouldn't exist, so the Rules can only do what the Rules say they can do. So R2141 says that the rules generally *might* be able to make things *like* rules changes (not specifically). And R105 says that the rules can specifically make rules changes *where permitted*. So I merely say that (1) R105 permission must be explicit, and (2) a granting of general properties not even tied to rules changes is not sufficiently explicit. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Proto: Complex scoring
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also, should wins in such a system be based on absolute value, or do players have to win completely in one axis? Using absolute value, a win in one axis requires 100 points in that axis, but a balanced win in both axes is theoretically harder, requiring 71 points in each. I think that seems reasonable. -root both? I was under the impression that under your system, we would create an axis per contest.. I meant that each contest would be associated with one (or more) of the defined axes, not that each contest would have its own unique axis. -root
Re: DIS: Proto: Complex scoring
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 6:40 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also, should wins in such a system be based on absolute value, or do players have to win completely in one axis? Using absolute value, a win in one axis requires 100 points in that axis, but a balanced win in both axes is theoretically harder, requiring 71 points in each. I think that seems reasonable. -root both? I was under the impression that under your system, we would create an axis per contest.. I meant that each contest would be associated with one (or more) of the defined axes, not that each contest would have its own unique axis. -root Well, I think 1 axis/contest would be awesome, but that's just my opinion
Re: DIS: Proto: Complex scoring
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Upon a win announcement that one or more players have a score whose absolute value is at least 100 (specifying all such players), all those players satisfy the Winning Condition of High Score. Another suggestion: it would probably be preferable to make combined-axis wins easier than single-axis wins, rather than the other way around. So perhaps the criterion should be something like, for a score of a + bi, a 0 b = 2500/a. That would allow a win with a score of 50+50i, but would require more total points with fewer than 50 on either axis. -root
Re: DIS: Proto: Complex scoring
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So perhaps the criterion should be something like, for a score of a + bi, a 0 b = 2500/a. Which can of course be written more prettily as simply a * b = 2500. -root
Re: DIS: Proto: Complex scoring
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 16:40, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I meant that each contest would be associated with one (or more) of the defined axes, not that each contest would have its own unique axis. Not to be a spoilsport on the complex numbers thing, but if you are going to do the above why not define a set number of axes (say 3 or 5), and then require the average of all axes to be over 100 to win? It would be a lot simpler. Plus, (unless I'm doing the math wrong, which is quite possible) Murphy's proposed weekly change of score (p^2 + S) results in a rapidly inflating y axis. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Random Crop Creation (automated)
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 16:25, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 15:28 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I create the following crops in ais523's possession: 9, 1, 0, 4, 7, 7, 0, X The online AAA report doesn't seem to have recorded the crops on the list at the top, although they're in the recent events section... -- That was a bug which I fixed a few minutes ago. If you reload the page you should see the correct numbers (NOTE: You'll probably have to start a new browser session as the page is cached server-side per session). BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Proto: Complex scoring
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 16:40, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I meant that each contest would be associated with one (or more) of the defined axes, not that each contest would have its own unique axis. Not to be a spoilsport on the complex numbers thing, but if you are going to do the above why not define a set number of axes (say 3 or 5), and then require the average of all axes to be over 100 to win? Because requiring an average of 100 points over 3 axes is equivalent to just requiring 300 total points, which is essentially just the current system with a higher target. Plus, (unless I'm doing the math wrong, which is quite possible) Murphy's proposed weekly change of score (p^2 + S) results in a rapidly inflating y axis. I missed that bit when I skimmed the proto. I agree that would inflate too rapidly -- with the current score index, a player with no points would win in four weeks without even doing anything. -root
Re: DIS: Proto: Complex scoring
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I missed that bit when I skimmed the proto. I agree that would inflate too rapidly -- with the current score index, a player with no points would win in four weeks without even doing anything. Er, non-real score. So the above is false, but a player with i points would win in three weeks. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Expanded foreign relations
root wrote: On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Pavitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In recognition of the recent and mostly-successful export of the Monster to B Nomic, and in order to further enable trade relations with B, the Recognition of B Nomic is hereby flipped to Friendly. Not until they repeal Agoran Silly Hat Day. Even with the recent clarification? http://b.nomic.net/index.php/Rules#Public_Holidays
