Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Emergency Fix Proposal
Roger Hicks wrote: > I don't see the equivalence. (If X then Y) implies (if X then Y else > (not Y)) which is why it seems broken to me. I believe you're confusing "if" with "iff". Do we need to add IF,IMPLIES,SUFFICIENT and IFF,IF AND ONLY IF,NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT to MMI? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: NOV Cleanup
Ed Murphy wrote: > Also, it's one more Platonic delayed-effect for the Insulator to track. Who said it has to be Platonic? "Any player CAN create N rests in the ninny's possession, provided that the case in question in unappealable and that no player has already done so for that case." Or even "A person CAN create rests in any person's possession, but SHALL NOT do so except as permitted by this rule, or as enabled by other rules. Any player MAY create N rests" signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: NOV Cleanup
BobTHJ wrote: > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 16:43, Ed Murphy wrote: >> BobTHJ wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 16:15, Ed Murphy wrote: BobTHJ wrote: > The "with N support" mechanism for NOVs is very messy. This proposes > to replace that with a simple "with support". It also removes the This would allow the CotC or Justiciar to launch a successful five-lights scam with just one other conspirator. >>> True, but the problem with the 5-lights scam was not the NOV >>> publication. It was the ability to publish, contest, CFJ, and sentence >>> all in the same message. The with N support 'fix' for NOV publication >>> attacked the wrong problem. >> The real problem is that a sentence of SILENCE imposes Rests >> immediately; imposing delays earlier in the process wouldn't stop the >> C-or-J and eir confederate from (a) submitting sufficiently many NOVs >> and (b) sentencing and activity-juggling all in the same message. >> >> One possibility is to allow only (say) five sentences of SILENCE to >> take effect per day, delaying additional sentences in 1-day increments. >> > Why not just wait to impose rests until the judgment is un-appealable? Because, for non-scam cases, it's generally already been delayed: 1) Violation occurs 2) Someone NoVs 3) Someone contests NoV 4) Someone initiates criminal case 5) CotC assigns judge 5b) Judge may drop the ball for a week 5c) CotC recuses, assigns new judge 5d) New judge may also drop the ball, etc. 6) Judge decides that both GUILTY and SILENCE are appropriate particularly after step 4. Also, it's one more Platonic delayed-effect for the Insulator to track.
DIS: Re: BUS: Emergency Fix Proposal
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Roger Hicks wrote: > If the action is to be performed With Notice then there are no > restrictions are imposed on Agora being Satisfied with the intent. English please. -- Taral "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Emergency Fix Proposal
On Fri, 2009-08-28 at 16:52 +0100, ais523 wrote: > "If X then Y" implies nothing about the truth value of Y if X turns out > to be true. That should read: > "If X then Y" implies nothing about the truth value of Y if X turns > out to be false. Obviously, I suck at correcting things. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Emergency Fix Proposal
On Fri, 2009-08-28 at 16:52 +0100, ais523 wrote: > On Fri, 2009-08-28 at 09:45 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote: > > I don't see the equivalence. (If X then Y) implies (if X then Y else > > (not Y)) which is why it seems broken to me. > Err, no it doesn't. > > "If X then Y" implies nothing about the truth value of Y if X turns out > to be true. That should read: > "If X then Y" implies nothing about the truth value of Y if X turns > out to be true. Sorry for the typo! -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: NOV Cleanup
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 16:43, Ed Murphy wrote: > BobTHJ wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 16:15, Ed Murphy wrote: >>> BobTHJ wrote: >>> The "with N support" mechanism for NOVs is very messy. This proposes to replace that with a simple "with support". It also removes the >>> This would allow the CotC or Justiciar to launch a successful >>> five-lights scam with just one other conspirator. >>> >> True, but the problem with the 5-lights scam was not the NOV >> publication. It was the ability to publish, contest, CFJ, and sentence >> all in the same message. The with N support 'fix' for NOV publication >> attacked the wrong problem. > > The real problem is that a sentence of SILENCE imposes Rests > immediately; imposing delays earlier in the process wouldn't stop the > C-or-J and eir confederate from (a) submitting sufficiently many NOVs > and (b) sentencing and activity-juggling all in the same message. > > One possibility is to allow only (say) five sentences of SILENCE to > take effect per day, delaying additional sentences in 1-day increments. > Why not just wait to impose rests until the judgment is un-appealable? BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Emergency Fix Proposal
2009/8/28 Roger Hicks : > (If X then Y) implies (if X then Y else (not Y)) Jesus flippin' Christ on a pogo stick Please tell me this was a typo.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Emergency Fix Proposal
On Fri, 2009-08-28 at 09:45 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote: > I don't see the equivalence. (If X then Y) implies (if X then Y else > (not Y)) which is why it seems broken to me. Err, no it doesn't. "If X then Y" implies nothing about the truth value of Y if X turns out to be true. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Emergency Fix Proposal
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 09:22, comex wrote: > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Aug 28, 2009, at 8:08 AM, Roger Hicks wrote: >>> >> Well, to be honest the whole thing doesn't make sense. comex's >> arguments only further convinced me that the rule has been broken all >> along. I retract the above proposal (which wasn't distributable anyway >> because I forgot II=0) and submit the following, making it >> distributable: > > (Either (X and Y) or (not X)) is logically equivalent to (If X then Y)). So > this proposal just adds verbosity, functionally equivalent to striking With > Notice in the existing rule. Though, as the present wording seems to be > confusing to some, perhaps verbosity is a good thing... I don't see the equivalence. (If X then Y) implies (if X then Y else (not Y)) which is why it seems broken to me. Maybe I just don't get it. Whatever the case the current wording seemed ambiguous enough that everyone in Agora missed the proper functioning of the rule until after the proposal was adopted. This alone seems a good reason to clarify it in more understandable terms. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Emergency Fix Proposal
Sent from my iPhone On Aug 28, 2009, at 8:08 AM, Roger Hicks wrote: Well, to be honest the whole thing doesn't make sense. comex's arguments only further convinced me that the rule has been broken all along. I retract the above proposal (which wasn't distributable anyway because I forgot II=0) and submit the following, making it distributable: (Either (X and Y) or (not X)) is logically equivalent to (If X then Y)). So this proposal just adds verbosity, functionally equivalent to striking With Notice in the existing rule. Though, as the present wording seems to be confusing to some, perhaps verbosity is a good thing...
DIS: Re: BUS: Emergency Fix Proposal
On Fri, 2009-08-28 at 08:47 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 16:35, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > I submit the following proposal and play Distrib-u-Matic to make it
> > Distributable:
> >
> > FIXME (II=1, AI=3)
>
> Why kill the rest of the otherwise functioning proposal?
>
> I play Committee to make FIXME undistributable.
>
> I submit the following proposal and make it distributable:
Doesn't work, the II is too high.
> Fix Dependant Actions
> AI: 2
> II: 1
> {
> In R2124 ("Agoran Satisfaction") replace:
> {{
> The action to be performed is With Notice.
> }}
> with:
> {{
> If the action is to be performed With Notice then there are no
> restrictions are imposed on Agora being Satisfied with the intent.
> }}
> }
That doesn't work correctly either; adding that to the end of an 'and'
list makes no sense.
--
ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Bad Idea
Sean Hunt wrote:
> That Was Easy (AI=1, II=0)
> {{{
> Each person who cast a valid vote FOR this proposal wins the game.
> }}}
I vote FOR this proposal.
I retract that and vote AGAINST it.
Note that the first vote was valid _at the time I cast it_; i.e., I have
cast a valid vote FOR the proposal. The fact that it later became
invalid due to retraction doesn't change that.
Feel free to retract and repropose; you've already spent the
Distrib-u-matic.
9. I will not create yet another obvious-bribery wins-for-votes proposal
unless it contains some sort of clever or original twist.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PNP amendment
Elliott Hird wrote: > 2009/8/27 Geoffrey Spear : >> I intend, without objection, to modify section 8 of the PNP agreement >> by replacing "http://nomic.info/perlnomic"; with >> "http://www.normish.org/perlnomic";. >> > > I proto-object. Why? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
