Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Kill it with fire
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 16:20, Ed Murphy wrote: > BobTHJ wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 07:37, Ed Murphy wrote: >>> Proposal: Kill it with fire >>> (AI = 2, please) >>> >>> Terminate the contract known as Points Party at the time this >>> proposal was submitted. >>> >>> >> Wouldn't this fail due to the retroactive effect? Why not just >> terminate as of the proposal's adoption? > > That was meant to be parsed at "Terminate [upon adoption of this > proposal] the contract [that was] known as" etc.. > > OIC
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Card plays and a proposal
coppro wrote: > Ed Murphy wrote: >> I wrote: >> >>> I play Kill Bill, naming the decision on Proposal 6466. >> TTttPF >> > > You realize this undoes all your voting limit playing? Yes, the point is that much of that voting limit playing was botched due to Arm-Twist being worded wrong.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Card plays and a proposal
Ed Murphy wrote: > I spend a Distrib-u-Matic to make the following proposal distributable. > > Proposal: Chaotic fix I think this works, but it would be nice to be sure. Does the proposal "exist yet" when the Distrib-u-Matic is played earlier in the message? We've generally treated actions within a message as sequential; but publishing some text isn't exactly an action. Intuitively, it seems like this should work; yet making it do so formally requires some finagling. Perhaps the publication of a message (as a whole) occurs causally "before" its text is evaluated as a series of actions? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Kill it with fire
BobTHJ wrote: > On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 07:37, Ed Murphy wrote: >> Proposal: Kill it with fire >> (AI = 2, please) >> >> Terminate the contract known as Points Party at the time this >> proposal was submitted. >> >> > Wouldn't this fail due to the retroactive effect? Why not just > terminate as of the proposal's adoption? That was meant to be parsed at "Terminate [upon adoption of this proposal] the contract [that was] known as" etc..
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Kill it with fire
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 07:37, Ed Murphy wrote: > Proposal: Kill it with fire > (AI = 2, please) > > Terminate the contract known as Points Party at the time this > proposal was submitted. > > Wouldn't this fail due to the retroactive effect? Why not just terminate as of the proposal's adoption? BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Card plays and a proposal
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > ais523 wrote: > >> Also, why 6466 anyway? I don't get what's so important about that >> proposal. > > Consider what happens when a smart-ass Justiciar assigns ID number > 99. Just because we haven't had any chaotic ID numbers > yet doesn't mean the concept isn't useful. Such a number would not be chaotic as the Justiciar would have violated only a SHOULD. -- -c.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Card plays and a proposal
ais523 wrote: > Also, why 6466 anyway? I don't get what's so important about that > proposal. Consider what happens when a smart-ass Justiciar assigns ID number 99. Just because we haven't had any chaotic ID numbers yet doesn't mean the concept isn't useful.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Card plays and a proposal
Wooble wrote: > On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: >> I play Arm-Twist, naming coppro and the decision on Proposal 6466. >> I play Arm-Twist, naming coppro and the decision on Proposal 6466. >> I play Arm-Twist, naming ehird and the decision on Proposal 6466. >> I play Arm-Twist, naming ehird and the decision on Proposal 6466. >> I play Arm-Twist, naming Yally and the decision on Proposal 6466. >> I play Arm-Twist, naming Yally and the decision on Proposal 6466. > > Are you aware that these increase the player's voting limit? Oh FFS. Would someone please transfer a prop from coppro (for breaking that) to Wooble (for pointing it out)? I've already done my prop transfer for this week. I play Kill Bill, naming the decision on Proposal 6466.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Card plays and a proposal
BobTHJ wrote: > On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 12:25, Ed Murphy wrote: >> Amend Rule 2259 (Hand Limits) by appending this text: >> >> As soon as possible after the beginning of each month, each dealer >> of a basic deck SHALL by announcement audit each entity who owns >> at least as many cards from that basic deck as any other entity. >> >> [This was removed between the first and second drafts of Proposal 6448.] >> > I think this needs to be "CAN and SHALL". "SHALL by announcement" implies "CAN by announcement".
DIS: My Presto! card
I believe there are at least two people who want my Presto! card. What are your offers?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Card plays and a proposal
On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 15:55 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > > I play Arm-Twist, naming coppro and the decision on Proposal 6466. > > I play Arm-Twist, naming coppro and the decision on Proposal 6466. > > I play Arm-Twist, naming ehird and the decision on Proposal 6466. > > I play Arm-Twist, naming ehird and the decision on Proposal 6466. > > I play Arm-Twist, naming Yally and the decision on Proposal 6466. > > I play Arm-Twist, naming Yally and the decision on Proposal 6466. > > Are you aware that these increase the player's voting limit? Also, why 6466 anyway? I don't get what's so important about that proposal. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CoE Acceptance
comex wrote: > On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 2:11 PM, ais523 wrote: >> but if the second one was, then the first one wasn't, as >> it denies that the first one was sent by it (i.e. accepting the CoE); >> the Executor of the first message is definitely comex, and it's >> plausible to reason that it was e who sent it, given the PNP's denial. > > Accepting an incorrect CoE does not make it correct. > The acceptance message was also signed "The PerlNomic Partnership", creating a new claim of identity.
DIS: Re: BUS: Card plays and a proposal
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > I play Arm-Twist, naming coppro and the decision on Proposal 6466. > I play Arm-Twist, naming coppro and the decision on Proposal 6466. > I play Arm-Twist, naming ehird and the decision on Proposal 6466. > I play Arm-Twist, naming ehird and the decision on Proposal 6466. > I play Arm-Twist, naming Yally and the decision on Proposal 6466. > I play Arm-Twist, naming Yally and the decision on Proposal 6466. Are you aware that these increase the player's voting limit?
DIS: Re: BUS: Card plays and a proposal
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 12:25, Ed Murphy wrote: > Amend Rule 2259 (Hand Limits) by appending this text: > > As soon as possible after the beginning of each month, each dealer > of a basic deck SHALL by announcement audit each entity who owns > at least as many cards from that basic deck as any other entity. > > [This was removed between the first and second drafts of Proposal 6448.] > I think this needs to be "CAN and SHALL". BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Grand Poobah] Deck of Government report
2009/9/2 Charles Walker : > On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Jonatan > Kilhamn wrote: >> === Grand Poobah's Deck of Government report === > > Suggestion for addition to this and all other card reports: what cards > actually do. I can never remember. > > -- > C-walker (Charles Walker) > I remember thinking about that, dismissing it for making the report too long. But then again I keep forgetting what they do myself, so I will think about it for next week. -- -Tiger
DIS: Re: OFF: [Grand Poobah] Deck of Government report
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > === Grand Poobah's Deck of Government report === Suggestion for addition to this and all other card reports: what cards actually do. I can never remember. -- C-walker (Charles Walker)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PNP amendment
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 7:37 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > I make the above change, assuming ais523 and I were actually the last > 2 people to be active on PerlNomic when the file making us active was > deleted. (This is probably impossible to determine, but seems very > likely since we were the only people with interest in the game.) NoV: Wooble violated Rule 2215 (Power-1) by falsely claiming that e amended the PerlNomic contract. Uh, or something. I don't really understand what's changed in the lat 5 days. -- -c.
DIS: Re: BUS: CoE Acceptance
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 2:11 PM, ais523 wrote: > but if the second one was, then the first one wasn't, as > it denies that the first one was sent by it (i.e. accepting the CoE); > the Executor of the first message is definitely comex, and it's > plausible to reason that it was e who sent it, given the PNP's denial. Accepting an incorrect CoE does not make it correct. -- -c.
DIS: Re: BUS: CoE Acceptance
On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 13:57 -0400, comex wrote: > On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 1:50 PM, The PerlNomic > Partnership wrote: > > > > ais523 wrote (referring to a message sent from this email earlier today): > >> Additionally: CoE: you are not the PerlNomic Partnership, due to being > >> on the wrong server (Wooble claims that Rainer never consented to the > >> intent to amend the contract to change the server). > > > > I accept this CoE. > > CoE: If normish.org does not in fact host the PNP, this isn't by the PNP > either. > Well, as far as I can tell, we can only conclude that the message was not from the PNP. If the original message wasn't, then it wasn't; if it was, then by the CoE denial, it wasn't. (The second message was, incidentally, sent by a PerlNomic proposal which was passed in the usual way, via voting.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PNP Contract Change
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 1:42 PM, ais523 wrote: > Gratuitous: You are mistaking the meaning of "reasonable opportunity". > The meaning in R101 implies, to me, that it's reasonable to conclude > that the player would have had the opportunity no matter what the > circumstances; it's generally impossible to platonically conclude > whether someone had the opportunity or not, but it's certainly possible > to conclude whether it's reasonable to believe that they did; and it's > unreasonable to conclude that any PNP party (apart from comex, who > proposed the change) definitely would have had a reasonable opportunity > to review the change even if (like, presumably, Pavitra or Darth Cliche > is) they weren't online at the time. Gratuitous: That's not what the rule says at all. The rule says "reasonable opportunity" to distinguish a reasonable from an unreasonable opportunity. An unreasonable opportunity might be, for example, posting the link on IRC then making the change a second later, or burying it halfway down a report, or requiring you to pay me 400zm before I would show you the contract. Waiting for a vote against a very simple proposal is, on the other hand, a reasonable opportunity. It is also reasonable and was reasonable at the time to believe that you had the opportunity. Admittedly, it is not reasonable to conclude that you had the opportunity if we ignore all circumstances and look only at the timing, but it's also unreasonable to conclude that you had the opportunity to review it if we ignore the fact that you're a human being, and I don't see any reason to do one over the other. -- -c.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PNP Contract Change
On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 13:38 -0400, comex wrote: > On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 1:35 PM, ais523 wrote: > > Gratuitous: Although I did in fact review this intent (as can easily be > > determined from PerlNomic's logs), I didn't have a reasonable > > opportunity to review it (a few hours is not a reasonable opportunity); > > and what R101 cares about is not whether a player did review the change, > > but whether they had a reasonable opportunity. For instance, Pavitra > > almost certainly didn't review the change; e didn't have a reasonable > > opportunity later. > > Gratuitous: How could you possibly review something without having the > opportunity to review it? > Gratuitous: You are mistaking the meaning of "reasonable opportunity". The meaning in R101 implies, to me, that it's reasonable to conclude that the player would have had the opportunity no matter what the circumstances; it's generally impossible to platonically conclude whether someone had the opportunity or not, but it's certainly possible to conclude whether it's reasonable to believe that they did; and it's unreasonable to conclude that any PNP party (apart from comex, who proposed the change) definitely would have had a reasonable opportunity to review the change even if (like, presumably, Pavitra or Darth Cliche is) they weren't online at the time. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: PNP Contract Change
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 1:35 PM, ais523 wrote: > Gratuitous: Although I did in fact review this intent (as can easily be > determined from PerlNomic's logs), I didn't have a reasonable > opportunity to review it (a few hours is not a reasonable opportunity); > and what R101 cares about is not whether a player did review the change, > but whether they had a reasonable opportunity. For instance, Pavitra > almost certainly didn't review the change; e didn't have a reasonable > opportunity later. Gratuitous: How could you possibly review something without having the opportunity to review it? -- -c.
Re: DIS: Error
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:18, comex wrote: > http://nomic.bob-space.com/agoralog.aspx > I fixed it. Sorry for the trouble. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Error
2009/9/2 comex : > http://nomic.bob-space.com/agoralog.aspx It sure would be nice if this centralised automation was at all accessible, huh.
DIS: Error
http://nomic.bob-space.com/agoralog.aspx -- -c.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 09:58, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 09:48, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> Audits are Too Severe (AI=2, II=1)
>>> {{{
>>> Amend Rule 2259 by replacing
>>> Any entity CAN audit itself by announcement. When an active
>>> player is audited that player gains one Rest for each
>>> rule-defined card e owns in excess of eir hand limit (minimum
>>> 0). When any other entity is audited X random cards that entity
>>> owns are destroyed, where X equals the number of card that
>>> entity owns minus eir hand limit (minimum 0)..
>>> with
>>> Any entity CAN audit itself by announcement. When a first-class
>>> player is audited, that player gains one Rest for each 5 Cards or
>>> portion thereof which e owns in excess of eir Hand Limit. When any
>>> other entity is audited, the auditing entity (or, if there is
>>> none, the Accountor) CAN and SHALL by announcement destroy X of
>>> eir cards, selected at random, where X is one-half rounded up of
>>> the number of cards e owns in excess of eir Hand Limit. Position
>>> Cards are not considered Cards for the purposes of this rule.
>>> }}}
>>> I play Distrib-u-Matic to make it Distributable.
>>>
>> Why bother with hand limits at all? This won't stop anyone from hoarding.
>>
>> BobTHJ
> You think the current text is better, then?
>
With the loopholes closed (as I proposed), yes I do.
BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 09:48, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Audits are Too Severe (AI=2, II=1)
>> {{{
>> Amend Rule 2259 by replacing
>> Any entity CAN audit itself by announcement. When an active
>> player is audited that player gains one Rest for each
>> rule-defined card e owns in excess of eir hand limit (minimum
>> 0). When any other entity is audited X random cards that entity
>> owns are destroyed, where X equals the number of card that
>> entity owns minus eir hand limit (minimum 0)..
>> with
>> Any entity CAN audit itself by announcement. When a first-class
>> player is audited, that player gains one Rest for each 5 Cards or
>> portion thereof which e owns in excess of eir Hand Limit. When any
>> other entity is audited, the auditing entity (or, if there is
>> none, the Accountor) CAN and SHALL by announcement destroy X of
>> eir cards, selected at random, where X is one-half rounded up of
>> the number of cards e owns in excess of eir Hand Limit. Position
>> Cards are not considered Cards for the purposes of this rule.
>> }}}
>> I play Distrib-u-Matic to make it Distributable.
>>
> Why bother with hand limits at all? This won't stop anyone from hoarding.
>
> BobTHJ
You think the current text is better, then?
-coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 09:48, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Audits are Too Severe (AI=2, II=1)
> {{{
> Amend Rule 2259 by replacing
> Any entity CAN audit itself by announcement. When an active
> player is audited that player gains one Rest for each
> rule-defined card e owns in excess of eir hand limit (minimum
> 0). When any other entity is audited X random cards that entity
> owns are destroyed, where X equals the number of card that
> entity owns minus eir hand limit (minimum 0)..
> with
> Any entity CAN audit itself by announcement. When a first-class
> player is audited, that player gains one Rest for each 5 Cards or
> portion thereof which e owns in excess of eir Hand Limit. When any
> other entity is audited, the auditing entity (or, if there is
> none, the Accountor) CAN and SHALL by announcement destroy X of
> eir cards, selected at random, where X is one-half rounded up of
> the number of cards e owns in excess of eir Hand Limit. Position
> Cards are not considered Cards for the purposes of this rule.
> }}}
> I play Distrib-u-Matic to make it Distributable.
>
Why bother with hand limits at all? This won't stop anyone from hoarding.
BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: NoVs
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > You're right, I should have clarified I was suggesting that it was > possible grounds for DISCHARGE rather than not guilty, that's the only > place for custom to enter. However, I'd say that "I didn't know the > election results were announced and I was the winner" is reasonable for > at least a w/o objection period under a R1504(d) Not Guilty. In this case, the fact that the officeholder was doing the Cards-related duties of the office is fairly good evidence against UNAWARE.
