Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
Thanks, I meant the latter. I'll repropose (, distribute, etc.) tomorrow. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 18, 2012, at 9:12 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote: On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:12 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: Casting a vote for PRESENT is equivalent to endorsing the Speaker (the identity of the Speaker is part of the condition). The identity of the Speaker is part of the condition is perfectly ambiguous. It could mean either the current identity of the Speaker is hard-coded into the condition, or the vote is conditional upon the identity of the Speaker. ―Machiavelli
DIS: Re: BUS: Agreement
You will nod you, indeed! Sent from my iPhone On Jun 18, 2012, at 9:43 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: I transfer a ruble to Nuas Te. -scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: Agreement
Would, even. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 18, 2012, at 11:36 PM, com...@gmail.com wrote: You will nod you, indeed! Sent from my iPhone On Jun 18, 2012, at 9:43 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: I transfer a ruble to Nuas Te. -scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
I think this would just result in fewer PRESENT votes and more no-votes.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 3215-16 assigned to omd
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:24 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: I belatedly judge CFJs 3215-16 TRUE, because as I mentioned shortly after they were called, there are more unusual ways to introduce proposal or cause rule changes that would prevent Agora from being ossified in any case. Did you mean to judge 3215 FALSE? If removing which places the proposal in the Proposal Pool wouldn't make Agora ossified, and the Ruleset doesn't self-ratify, I don't see why it would still be there when I called 3215.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's get things moving
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:01 AM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:51 PM, FKA441344 441...@gmail.com wrote: *scshunt violated Rule 2158 by failing to assign judgement to case 3218 ASAP after it was assigned to em. Evidence: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3218 Arguments: It wasn't me, boss! -scshunt Oops. If possible I retract this case. I initiate a criminal case: ais523 violated Rule 2158 by failing to assign judgement to case 3218 ASAP after it was assigned to em.
DIS: Re: BUS: Agreement
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 12:43 AM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: I transfer a ruble to Nuas Te. Thank you. —Nuas te
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's get things moving
ais523 wrote: On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 18:42 +0100, FKA441344 wrote: On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:01 AM, Sean Huntscsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:51 PM, FKA44131...@gmail.com wrote: *scshunt violated Rule 2158 by failing to assign judgement to case 3218 ASAP after it was assigned to em. Evidence: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3218 Arguments: It wasn't me, boss! -scshunt Oops. If possible I retract this case. I initiate a criminal case: ais523 violated Rule 2158 by failing to assign judgement to case 3218 ASAP after it was assigned to em. Arguments: It wasn't originally clear whether the case existed, or who it had been assigned to. (In fact, I suspect it may /still/ be assigned to FKA441344.) Granted on whether the case existed, but I don't follow how it would have existed and been assigned to someone else (especially FKA441344, who initiated it).
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 3217/3218
3218 is an inquiry case; NOT GUILTY is not a valid judgement for it. On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: I judge CFJs 3217 and 3218 NOT GUILTY. I can't find anything in rule 2365, nor in rule 2362, nor in rule 2354 (which uses condition), that would imply that there's anything illegal involved in not paying a proposal promotion cost. The only sensible reading of rule 2365 is that attempts to add excess proposals to the Pool without paying the cost (explicitly paying the cost, per rule 2354) simply fail. If another rule contradicts this, then it doesn't cause rule 2365 to suddenly start imposing criminal obligations; it just causes its attempt to impose platonic requirements to fail. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Agreement
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote: My opinion is FALSE. Since my nickname change was not posted to a public forum, nor even a forum that most Agorans subscribe to, it was not known to Agora at large, making the name Nuas Te ambiguous. (Subjectively ambiguous, that is.) Now that I have used the nickname, it is known to Agora at large, meaning that the action would succeed if it were tried again. Yep.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's get things moving
ais523 wrote: On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 12:20 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: Granted on whether the case existed, but I don't follow how it would have existed and been assigned to someone else (especially FKA441344, who initiated it). You purported to assign it to FKA441344, so it rather depends on whether the platonisation on judge assignment allows or forbids that, which I'm looking up as I write this. Ah, and found it in rule 1504. (Rule 1868 contradicts it, but deliberately defers to other power-2 rules in the matter, so rule 1504 binds). Seems that assigning to the initiator fails, but it's far from obvious that that's the case. Even if that wasn't so, my preface if I haven't already probably would have rendered the assignments to FKA441344 ineffective. Proto: Refactor non-self-judgement (AI = 2, co-author = ais523) Amend Rule 1868 (Judge Assignment Generally) by replacing this text: second-class players are always unqualified to judge. with this text: the initiator of a case is always unqualified to judge it, and second-class players are always unqualified to judge. Amend Rule 591 (Inquiry Cases) by replacing this text: The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge of the case. with this text: In the initiating announcement, the initiator CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge of the case. Amend Rule 1504 (Criminal Cases) by replacing this text: The initiator and each member of the Accused's basis are unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. with this text: Each member of the Accused's basis (as of the time of the action/inaction in question) is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. Proto: Foundation (AI = 3) Amend Rule 2150 (Personhood) by appending this text: The basis of a second-class person is the empty set, unless other rules specify a different basis. [Currently, this covers Agora Nomic.] Amend Rule 2326 (The President) by appending this text: The basis of the President is the singleton set consisting of the Speaker. Amend Rule 2328 (Public Agreements) by appending this text: The basis of an agreement is the set of players agreeing to it. Amend Rule 2360 (Golems) by appending this text: The basis of a Golem is the singleton set consisting of its owner.
