Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6944 - 6947
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:37 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: R2125 uses the phrase as allowed by the rules. Where permitted by other rules might be slightly different when multiple rules are in conflict (not sure), but I doubt it differs in the level of required explicitness. So any permission that satisfies your antecedent already satisfies R2125. R2125 is also taking about actions. Everywhere else in the rules that the word action is used, it's referring to something done by a person. The rule simply doesn't apply to a change made to the gamestate by a proposal. The proposal isn't performing a game action by changing the gamestate, regulated or otherwise.
DIS: Re: BUS: who knows if this all works still
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: [Still 274 messages behind but might as well] I become active. I sit up. Iff the office of Fearmongor is Assumed, I assume it. I make ehird Quiet (call that wishful thinking :P ) -G. Do you realize you're a dictator?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: who knows if this all works still
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011, omd wrote: On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: [Still 274 messages behind but might as well] I become active. I sit up. Iff the office of Fearmongor is Assumed, I assume it. I make ehird Quiet (call that wishful thinking :P ) -G. Do you realize you're a dictator? It's been privately pointed out to me, but I haven't Gotten To It yet. :)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: who knows if this all works still
On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 09:53 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Tue, 18 Jan 2011, omd wrote: On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: [Still 274 messages behind but might as well] I become active. I sit up. Iff the office of Fearmongor is Assumed, I assume it. I make ehird Quiet (call that wishful thinking :P ) -G. Do you realize you're a dictator? It's been privately pointed out to me, but I haven't Gotten To It yet. :) It wasn't private in order to keep it secret (everyone knows), but rather to increase the chance you saw the message before you got through the whole backlog. The chance of anyone breaking Agora by mistake is quite low, but when they're a dictator, it's rather higher, so I felt a warning was potentially warranted. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: a transaction
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011, omd wrote: On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: I sell my soul to the Lord Demon of UNDEAD CoE: You don't have sufficient ergs to do that. This also ignores (but implicitly triggers) Clause 12.
DIS: Re: Cleaning
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 13:53, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: I pay fees to destroy 3 ergs in my possession. By which I of course meant rests... *facepalm*
DIS: Re: BUS: Cleaning
Yally wrote: On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 14:23, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Yally wrote: I pay fees to destroy 3 ergs in my possession. NoV: Yally violated the Power=1 Rule 2215 (Truthiness) by claiming that eir attempted erg destruction was a fee-based action. Intended NoV, with 1 support: Yally violated the Power=1 Rule 2215 (Truthiness) by claiming that e destroyed 3 ergs. I contest this NoV. Players are explicitly allowed to destroy ergs as a fee-based action. How many ergs did you have before the botched message? Proto-proto: Amend the relevant clause of R2284 from a specified player to another specified player.
DIS: Re: BUS: Cleaning
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: I pay fees to destroy 3 ergs in my possession. There's a good argument that all announcement actions are fee-based (zero is non-negative), so this might be valid even if you didn't have enough ergs to use the normal fee-based destruction.
DIS: Re: BUS: An opinion
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: I opine REMAND without prejudice on CFJ 2929a. Given the arguments on the CFJ, the judge should ideally go into more detail as to what their affect is, or if they're irrelevant (and if so, why). The arguments all seemed fairly blandly worded to me, although I don't see how that affects the case.
DIS: Re: BUS: An ergent question
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: CFJ, II 1: A player with exactly 2 ergs remaining CAN destroy 1 erg in eir own possession via a fee-based action. CFJ, II 1: It is legal for a player with exactly 2 ergs remaining to attempt to destroy 1 erg in eir own possession via a fee-based action. CFJ, II 1: If a player with exactly 2 ergs remaining attempts to destroy 1 erg in eir own possession via a fee-based action, after the attempt e will possess at least 1 erg. Gratuitous: It's possible that announcement actions are fee-based actions with a zero cost, which would make this even weirder (the rules would then list two different fees for the same action).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: a transaction
Crap... I thought the 4th Amendment had predecence... =S On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Mon, 10 Jan 2011, omd wrote: On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: I sell my soul to the Lord Demon of UNDEAD CoE: You don't have sufficient ergs to do that. This also ignores (but implicitly triggers) Clause 12.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Cleaning
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 14:32, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Yally wrote: On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 14:23, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Yally wrote: I pay fees to destroy 3 ergs in my possession. NoV: Yally violated the Power=1 Rule 2215 (Truthiness) by claiming that eir attempted erg destruction was a fee-based action. Intended NoV, with 1 support: Yally violated the Power=1 Rule 2215 (Truthiness) by claiming that e destroyed 3 ergs. I contest this NoV. Players are explicitly allowed to destroy ergs as a fee-based action. How many ergs did you have before the botched message? Proto-proto: Amend the relevant clause of R2284 from a specified player to another specified player. At least 9.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Cleaning
omd wrote: On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: I pay fees to destroy 3 ergs in my possession. There's a good argument that all announcement actions are fee-based (zero is non-negative), so this might be valid even if you didn't have enough ergs to use the normal fee-based destruction. I think associate in R2283 needs to be explicit. Also, your interpretation would imply that lots of announcement actions fail because the zero-erg fee wasn't noted.
DIS: Re: BUS: Popular uprising
G. wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I submit the following AI-1 proposal Out with the Dictator 1:
{{
Repeal Rule 2324.
[This is ineffective if the purported escalations worked.]
}}
I submit the following AI-3 proposal Out with the Dictator 3:
{{
Repeal Rule 2324.
}}
I intend, with notice, to cause Rule 2324 to:
a) enact a Rule with power-1, title Article V, and the following text:
Murphy CAN cause this rule to make arbitrary gamestate changes,
except for any amendment of Rule 2223, by announcement.
b) and then repeal itself.
[Note: this is proof-of-concept, I think it's possible to use the 4-day
notice to generally keep ahead of a rule change proposal that has to
unambiguously specify a change. A promotor/assessor conspiracy with some
automation could possibly beat this, although it would give rise to the
possibility of veto, etc.]
I think it would lead to a (potentially highly entertaining) arms race
between dictators and repealers. Consider this hypothetical proposal:
For each rule, in ascending order of ID number, replace each
instance of name CAN cause this rule to make arbitrary gamestate
changes (where name clearly refers to a current or former player)
with name is a newt-neck.
