Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6583-6589
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: ? If Taral's eligible, wouldn't you and I be too Murphy ? -G. Taral's not eligible (was previously a player from 3 Apr 00 to 13 Dec 06). Not that I'm likely to have a No Confidence card fast enough to fulfill my pledge to try to become Registrar again, but consider this a campaign speech anyway. Anyway, previous mentors: pikhq named WALRUS, 20 Dec 2007 ais523 named Wooble, 15 Aug 2008 coppro named ais523, 21 Aug 2009 comex named Murphy, 24 Nov 2009
DIS: Re: OFF: [Thesis] The Propositional Nomic
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 1:30 AM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: The one thing, however, that is truly common to every nomic, and that is pedanticism. Clearly you haven't played Blognomic, where they'll gladly handwave away any obvious bugs.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6583-6589
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: ? If Taral's eligible, wouldn't you and I be too Murphy ? -G. Taral's not eligible (was previously a player from 3 Apr 00 to 13 Dec 06). Not that I'm likely to have a No Confidence card fast enough to fulfill my pledge to try to become Registrar again, but consider this a campaign speech anyway. That's not the way the rule reads: When a first-class person has been a player continuously for at least three months, was never a player before that period, and names another player as eir mentor (and has not named a mentor in this fashion before), the named player earns a White Ribbon. This seems to grandfather in everyone who was a player before the rule came to have this form. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6583-6589
I think has been a player continuously for X is supposed to mean is a player, and has been so continuously for X. e.g. if I deregister, I wouldn't say I've been a player of Agora for three months. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 24, 2009, at 11:19 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote: When a first-class person has been a player continuously for at least three months, was never a player before that period, and names another player as eir mentor (and has not named a mentor in this fashion before), the named player earns a White Ribbon. This seems to grandfather in everyone who was a player before the rule came to have this form. -G. To be precise: I was (had been) a player from Feb 2001-May 2001. I was never a player before that period. I have never named a mentor. I name Taral as my Mentor. I create a white ribbon in eir possession. I call the following CFJ: Taral has earned a white ribbon. Evidence: G. wrote: To be precise: I was (had been) a player from Feb 2001-May 2001. I was never a player before that period. I have never named a mentor. I name Taral as my Mentor. From Rule 2199/8: (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player for the first time, e earns a White Ribbon. When a first-class person has been a player continuously for at least three months, was never a player before that period, and names another player as eir mentor (and has not named a mentor in this fashion before), the named player earns a White Ribbon. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6583-6589
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, comex wrote: I think has been a player continuously for X is supposed to mean is a player, and has been so continuously for X. e.g. if I deregister, I wouldn't say I've been a player of Agora for three months. Heh, is c. arguing for what it's supposed to mean rather than what it says? :) I see the general linguistic arguments that you and Wooble have made, but logically the conditions: 1. Has been a player for 3 months continuously; 2. Was not a player before that continuous period; 3. Has not made an award; can all be logically satisfied even if the three month period is long in the past and even if that continuity (after the three months) was broken. Which is often enough for this Nomic, although, yes, of course I know what the rule is really *supposed* to say. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: UNDETERMINED
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I CFJ on: {{It is POSSIBLE to assign a judgment of UNDETERMINED to this CFJ.}}
Trivially TRUE. It may or may not be an *appropriate* judgment.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: UNDETERMINED
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I CFJ on: {{It is POSSIBLE to assign a judgment of UNDETERMINED to this
CFJ.}}
Trivially TRUE. It may or may not be an *appropriate* judgment.
No interpretation of Agoran Law may allow a judge to assign a
judgement that removes my right to have my CFJ resolved. Or
something. The arguments would have been better if I'd written them
while thinking about this instead of deciding it would be appropriate
to have it judged UNDETERMINED due to lack of arguments.
DIS: Re: BUS: Businesses
On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 13:45 -0700, Sean Hunt wrote: I create an Offer: Selling: - Mill For costs: A 0, 2, 6, or 5 Ranch, or 350zm. Repeats: 2 -coppro I'll buy these for zm, if I have the zm and you tell me how to do it. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Businesses
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 1:51 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 13:45 -0700, Sean Hunt wrote: I create an Offer: Selling: - Mill For costs: A 0, 2, 6, or 5 Ranch, or 350zm. Repeats: 2 -coppro I'll buy these for zm, if I have the zm and you tell me how to do it. -- ais523 According to c.'s website (http://iba.qoid.us/#calc), you have 500 zm. You can Fill the Offer by announcement (in this case, only once, meaning the other Mill will remain for sale). -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Businesses
On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 13:54 -0700, Sean Hunt wrote: On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 1:51 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 13:45 -0700, Sean Hunt wrote: I create an Offer: Selling: - Mill For costs: A 0, 2, 6, or 5 Ranch, or 350zm. Repeats: 2 -coppro I'll buy these for zm, if I have the zm and you tell me how to do it. According to c.'s website (http://iba.qoid.us/#calc), you have 500 zm. You can Fill the Offer by announcement (in this case, only once, meaning the other Mill will remain for sale). Heh, if I don't have enough to afford both of them, possibly best not to buy them after all. I may want to spend that zm on other things... -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Official Salaries
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 7:07 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: These are the draws earned by players for eir services as officers last week: Player Deck # - c. Justice 6 coppro Change 6 G. Change 5 Murphy Change 2 Murphy Justice 3 Tiger Government 4 Yally Change 1 CoE: I earned 2 draws from the Deck of Government as Scorekeepor. Admitted. I hereby announce that Wooble Earned two Draws from the Deck of Government. -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Mentor
If I have at least one Ribbon of each color defined by Rule 2199 and do not satisfy any Losing Conditions, then I destroy one of each such color to satisfy the Winning Condition of Renaissance. You have a Dunce Cap (lol). -coppro
DIS: Re: OFF: [Thesis] The Propositional Nomic
The Propositional Nomic an Agoran Thesis by Sean coppro Hunt Please note that this thesis requires UTF-8. I also apologize if my idea is not novel; a cursory search indicated it was, but such things are frequently misleading. There was http://www.nomic.net/~nomicwiki/index.php/FormalNomicThesis but that's basically just a pseudocode example of a codenomic.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6583-6589
G. wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: coppro wrote: But what about Murphy and myself? We are both very close to a victory; Murphy in particular needs only bribe a newbie to win. I believe the list of eligible newbies is a subset of ais523, c., coppro, Edmond Dantes, JonnyRotten, Ienpw III, Sgeo, Taral, Tiger, woggle, Yally. coppro, do you have a list of past mentor awards? ? If Taral's eligible, wouldn't you and I be too Murphy ? -G. The Registrar's report doesn't show Taral having deregistered (though I thought e had at some point). I deregistered to test non-player participation via the AFO, but if you're eligible via your recent CFJ (I doubt it, the intended reading is reasonably obvious) then so am I.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Thesis] The Propositional Nomic
Wooble wrote: On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 1:30 AM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: The one thing, however, that is truly common to every nomic, and that is pedanticism. Clearly you haven't played Blognomic, where they'll gladly handwave away any obvious bugs. Or the Fantasy Rules Committee, where they'll gladly let the judge declare someone a player retroactive to the beginning of the round just because /someone else/ submitted something they wrote as a fantasy rule. I'm not sure they've been bothering with the formal override procedure when judgeship is voluntarily transferred, either.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2735 assigned to Yally
I really can't say I have a clear idea of what zooping means. I don't know if it's something from a contract, some foreign word, some strange nomic word I'm not familiar with, or just a way to add a silly word that means nothing. For that matter, I opine that 2736 is FALSE. -Yally a) NttPF b) You don't opine on non-appeal cases. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Thesis] The Propositional Nomic
coppro wrote: In my rather short stint with the FRC, the rules seem to have been followed pretty well. Currently the Regular Ordinances allow transferring of judgeship without an overruling procedure. Ah, you're right. The other point stands, though; I added RO 4c to formally allow for latecomers that clearly intended to join, but the proxy case basically ignored intent in RO 2. Which is fine, it just demonstrates the extent to which consensus can gloss over formality in their case.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Thesis] The Propositional Nomic
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Ah, you're right. The other point stands, though; I added RO 4c to formally allow for latecomers that clearly intended to join, but the proxy case basically ignored intent in RO 2. Which is fine, it just demonstrates the extent to which consensus can gloss over formality in their case. Consensus glosses over formality plenty in Agora, thanks to ratification. But it's a rules-enshrined institution, and that's where the difference is in my mind. Also, re Wooble's comment about BlogNomic, I do not know much about the community there, but a quick glance shows that they seem to care a lot about very exact rules. -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2735 assigned to Yally
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: I really can't say I have a clear idea of what zooping means. I don't know if it's something from a contract, some foreign word, some strange nomic word I'm not familiar with, or just a way to add a silly word that means nothing. For that matter, I opine that 2736 is FALSE. -Yally a) NttPF b) You don't opine on non-appeal cases. -coppro Correction: It was to the PF. I wonder why I thought it was NTTPF. -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2735 assigned to Yally
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Yally wrote: I really can't say I have a clear idea of what zooping means. I don't know if it's something from a contract, some foreign word, some strange nomic word I'm not familiar with, or just a way to add a silly word that means nothing. For that matter, I opine that 2736 is FALSE. I interpret this as a judgement. I intend (with 2 support) to appeal it, requesting REASSIGN because the judge made no attempt to address the evidence giving possible definitions of zooping. Gratuitous arguments: I recommend AFFIRM. Per CFJ 1536, the judge not knowing what an action meant is good evidence that it can't possibly have been clear to everyone. -- -c.
DIS: Re: BUS: coppro's Random Government Deals
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Dice server dicemas...@nomic.net wrote: # Wooble 2 # 1: Government Ball # 2-30: On the Nod # 31-35: Debate-o-Matic # 36-40: No Confidence # 41-50: Kill Bill # 51-60: Cross the Lobby # 61-80: Extra Vote # 81-100: Local Election # Oops, forgot Wooble's extras. 84 63 I award Wooble a Local Election and an Extra Vote. -coppro
DIS: Proto: The Supreme Court
Proto: The Supreme Court (AI=2) [Cases can be appealed to the Supreme Court, a fixed (elected) set of three justices. Appeal can be made by announcement but court doesn't have to accept the appeal. If they do, they need to address the issue in detail. Compared to normal appeals, the court has more flexibility with the case, helpful for dealing with possible corruption in the judicial system.] Enact a Power-2 rule titled The Supreme Court with the following text: There are three offices known as the Court Offices: - First Associate Justice, - Second Associate Justice, and - Chief Justice. A justice is a person who holds a Court Office. The judicial panel consisting of each justice is the Supreme Court. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, each Court Office is always Postulated. An election for a Court Office CAN be initiated by any person with 3 support; if the office is filled, rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an election for it CANNOT be initiated by any other means. When the holder of a Court Office comes to hold another Court Office, the former office becomes vacant. Enact a Power-1.7 rule titled Special Appeal Cases with the following text: Special appeal cases are a subclass of judicial cases. A special appeal should be called when a person believes that a judicial case has been unfairly resolved, and the normal appeals process is incapable of yielding a fair resolution. A person other than a justice CAN create a special appeal case by announcement, specifying a case to be reviewed (the original case), which must not be a special appeal case or appeal case. The only eligible judge for a special appeal case is the Supreme Court. A special appeal case CANNOT be assigned a judge normally. Instead, any justice CAN issue a writ of certiorari pertaining to the case, which causes it to be assigned to the Supreme Court. A justice should issue writs of certiorari pertaining to cases which e thinks are especially interesting and important to the game, and should be dealt with in the Supreme Court. When a special appeal case is assigned a judge, the pre-trial phase begins. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, all questions in the original case are suspended, and cannot cease to be suspended except as described by this rule. The pre-trial phase lasts 72 hours. During the pre-trial phase, all interested parties are invited to submit arguments for the case, which should explain all issues in the case that the submitter wants addressed. A special appeal case has a question on disposition for each judicial question in the original case, which is applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The valid judgements for this question are the following: * AFFIRM: the last judgement to be assigned to the question is assigned again, and cannot be suspended except by another special appeal case. * OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement: the replacement judgement is assigned to the question, and cannot be suspended except by another special appeal case. * DEFER: the question becomes open. * DEFER TO EXISTING APPEAL, valid when there is already an appeal case concerning the question with an open question on disposition: the original question is suspended. * APPEAL: the question is suspended, and, rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a new appeal is initiated concerning it. (Should be combined with an action of REMAND.) A special appeal case also has a question on action, which is applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The valid judgements for this question are as follows: * REMAND: no effect. * REASSIGN: the current judge of the original case (if any) is recused. * ASSIGN TO, specifying an entity who was previously the judge of the original case. The current judge (if any) is recused and e is assigned. * NEW CLERK: The Clerk of the original case is flipped (to 'Justiciar' if it was 'CotC', and vice versa). The current judge of the original case (if any) is recused. The appropriateness of each judgement is left to the justices' discretion. Each justice should carefully consider the arguments and evidence submitted in a special appeal case before intending or supporting an intent to assign judgement, and provide reasonably detailed rationale for eir intent or support, addressing most of the issues raised in the special appeal. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an appeal case CANNOT be called concerning an assignment of judgement caused by a special appeal case. [[Note: There
