DIS: Re: BUS: Apology and proposals
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:55 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: > Create a rule titled "Ballot Fees" with this text: > > A player CAN change eir voting limit on a specified Agoran > decision to twice its original value for a cost of 1 ruble. Does "original value" mean its value at the beginning of the voting period, or its value immediately before doubling it? > Proposal: Water Rationing > (AI = 3) > > If rubles are not a currency, then this proposal has no effect. > > Create a rule titled "Pool Fees" with Power 3 and this text: > > Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, if at least five proposals > have been created earlier in the week, then creating a proposal > has a cost of 1 ruble. So in a given week, we only get five free proposals total, not five free proposals per player? Sounds gutsy. —Machiavelli
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3165 assigned to scshunt
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:19 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3165 > > == CFJ 3165 == > > omd is a complete idiot. > > > > Caller: ais523 Gratuitous arguments: the Oxford English Dictionary defines "idiot" as "a person who speaks or acts in what the speaker considers an irrational way, or with extreme stupidity or foolishness". Therefore, the only reasonable way to determine the answer to this CFJ is by asking either H. ais523 or Speaker Person Formally. —Cit. Machiavelli
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 7164 and 7166 - 7173
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I CFJ (linked) on: > (1) The Prisoner is a player. > Arguments: E never explicitly consented (R101iii). > > (2) The Prisoner's R101(vii) rights have been violated. > Arguments: If e is a player, eir ability to deregister is > severly restricted. so have Tweedledee and Tweedledum's, but I think the idea that a partnership's "desires" are what it says in the contract applies here - eir rights aren't being violated if e doesn't want to deregister.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 7164 and 7166 - 7173
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > [It's often bothered me that R101 could be gotten around by redefining > "person" (for example via R2150). This is only a problem now that Rule 2150 is Power 3...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 7164 and 7166 - 7173
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, omd wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > [It's often bothered me that R101 could be gotten around by redefining > > "person" (for example via R2150). > > This is only a problem now that Rule 2150 is Power 3... Well, if the "common dictionary" definition of person was used in R101 over a lower-powered R2150, that still leaves open whether partnerships were such persons by "common definition"; the old precedent that started partnerships in 2007 says they are. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Here goes nothing
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, omd wrote: > I cause Mr. Incredible to make each of the following players inactive: Huh. I could have sworn I secured activity when I used it for a scam last year. > Arguments: Making ais523 inactive is an action that is "not otherwise > IMPOSSIBLE"-- in particular, ais523 can do it by announcement, and any > player can do it without objection. Didn't this come up in another scam, that "otherwise impossible" includes things that are "regulated" as being "otherwise impossible to change" except as defined? I say "came up", I don't say I remember the decision! -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Here goes nothing
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Didn't this come up in another scam, that "otherwise impossible" > includes things that are "regulated" as being "otherwise impossible to > change" except as defined? I say "came up", I don't say I remember the > decision! http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3063, but I'm arguing that the action is, in fact, already POSSIBLE in general.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, omd wrote: >> THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET > > COE: The text of R2130 is incorrect (and 1006 too). > > The ruleset (and omd's rules website) seems to be missing some effects > of Proposal 6959 (30-Jan-2011, more recent than the latest ratification). Whoa, I missed that, probably because of the unusual subject line and because I was not Rulekeepor or a player at the time (although I was separately tracking the Ruleset). Incidentally, upon reviewing that whole sequence of events, I'm a bit disappointed that in CFJ 2943, ais523 chose to interpret my "I am dumb" as "I am incapable of speech" despite clear intent otherwise, thus not providing a satisfactory answer to whether or not my scam worked.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, omd wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, omd wrote: > > >> THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET > > > > > > COE: The text of R2130 is incorrect (and 1006 too). > > > > > > The ruleset (and omd's rules website) seems to be missing some effects > > > of Proposal 6959 (30-Jan-2011, more recent than the latest ratification). > > > > Whoa, I missed that, probably because of the unusual subject line and > > because I was not Rulekeepor or a player at the time (although I was > > separately tracking the Ruleset). > > > > Incidentally, upon reviewing that whole sequence of events, I'm a bit > > disappointed that in CFJ 2943, ais523 chose to interpret my "I am > > dumb" as "I am incapable of speech" despite clear intent otherwise, > > thus not providing a satisfactory answer to whether or not my scam > > worked. > > Think I missed the part about ais523 suggesting I give you a win... Er, misread comex for coppro so that wasn't you anyway.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, omd wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, omd wrote: > >> THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET > > > > COE: The text of R2130 is incorrect (and 1006 too). > > > > The ruleset (and omd's rules website) seems to be missing some effects > > of Proposal 6959 (30-Jan-2011, more recent than the latest ratification). > > Whoa, I missed that, probably because of the unusual subject line and > because I was not Rulekeepor or a player at the time (although I was > separately tracking the Ruleset). > > Incidentally, upon reviewing that whole sequence of events, I'm a bit > disappointed that in CFJ 2943, ais523 chose to interpret my "I am > dumb" as "I am incapable of speech" despite clear intent otherwise, > thus not providing a satisfactory answer to whether or not my scam > worked. Think I missed the part about ais523 suggesting I give you a win...
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3165 assigned to scshunt
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:21, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Evidence > > [Registrar's Report 1-Feb-2012 extract] > > The Person Forme... 441...@gmail.com 13 Jan 12 * > > [...] > > * The Person Formally Known As 441344 > This was a mistake, acknowledged by me immediately after the message was sent, and has been fixed in subsequent Registrar Reports.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3165 assigned to scshunt
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:21, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Evidence > > [Registrar's Report 1-Feb-2012 extract] > > The Person Forme... 441...@gmail.com 13 Jan 12 * > > [...] > > * The Person Formally Known As 441344 > > > This was a mistake, acknowledged by me immediately after the message was > sent, and has been fixed in subsequent Registrar Reports. Thanks. So it hasn't ratified, but the fact that you made the mistake (and others did subsequently, most recently someone else today) is still good evidence for "confusing".
DIS: Re: BUS: Here goes nothing
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > Gratuitous: The first method being limited to the announcer is an > inherent part of it, and similarly without-objection is an inherent > part of the second. Past exceptions to this common-sense approach > have depended on alternate constructions, e.g. "the Vizier can do > anything that an officer can do" allowing em to resign an office > held by someone else. Gratuitous: It seems to me that "make ais523 inactive" is the action, ais523 is the actor, and "by announcement or without objection" is the method - if ais523 made emself inactive, and then someone used a dictatorship rule to make ais523 inactive, you would say they took the same action.* The rule refers to the possibility of the action, not the actor or method. * (a dictatorship rule rather than the existing without objection method because even though Dependent Actions simply allows you to perform the action by announcement once you have approval, "I do X" and "without objection I do X" are visually different and instinctively I would consider them separate actions; it probably doesn't matter)
DIS: Re: BUS: The Village, take two
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > I create a Slave Golem named Number Two. > > I announce that I will never cause Number Two to deregister. > > I cause Number Two to announce that e wants to deregister. I announce that I want to deregister. ...But my R101 rights haven't been violated, since I could have easily sent a well-formed deregistration if I truly so wished, but chose not to.
DIS: Re: BUS: by the way, this is another bug
Changing someone's name to " I cause " doesn't deregister yourself.
