Re: DIS: A blatant attempt at blackmail
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 22:41 -0700, omd wrote: > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:12 PM, ais523 wrote: > > Actually, thinking about this, I think it's impossible under the current > > rules for anyone to inform a nomic (including Agora) of anything, > > because the rules don't define a mechanism for doing so, and nomics are > > legal fictions. > > Well, if you asked me to inform BlogNomic of something, it would be > obvious to me what you were asking me to do: post on the blog. Counterpoint: /last/ time I was Ambassador (a long time ago now), I communicated with BlogNomic's playerbase over IRC, not on the blog itself. (And am currently using the same method to communicate with Aeonomic's.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: A blatant attempt at blackmail
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:12 PM, ais523 wrote: > Actually, thinking about this, I think it's impossible under the current > rules for anyone to inform a nomic (including Agora) of anything, > because the rules don't define a mechanism for doing so, and nomics are > legal fictions. Well, if you asked me to inform BlogNomic of something, it would be obvious to me what you were asking me to do: post on the blog. In that case, even though not all active players might actually read the blog post, the blog is the clear and obvious point of communication with the community; and if it's unambiguous enough in that context (that posting to the blog would count as informing BlogNomic, not that it's the only way to do so), it should be enough for a rule that explicitly requires a definition for informing a nomic (which, of course, has a different standard than a public message which can fail due to ambiguity). In my trivial case it's a bit more vague, but not ISIDTID: it merely assumes that informing all players of a nomic (with a reasonable definition of "player" that accurately represents who is involved in the game) satisfies the ordinary language definition of informing the nomic, and that informing one out of two does not (since, for example, in general that would allow the player in the know to pull a scam against the other, though my trivial nomic doesn't currently have any relevant rules; it is a reasonable principle that all players should have equal access to the information).
Re: DIS: A blatant attempt at blackmail
On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 05:06 +0100, ais523 wrote: > On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 20:59 -0700, omd wrote: > > Clarification: I forgot to state that the person who made the false > > claim is the other player of Existential Nomic, so e's also the one > > that has to be informed. > > This message contains the ISIDTID fallacy… Actually, thinking about this, I think it's impossible under the current rules for anyone to inform a nomic (including Agora) of anything, because the rules don't define a mechanism for doing so, and nomics are legal fictions. Sending a message to a specific omd-defined player is as much OSIDTID as me posting a message to a-b saying "I inform Existential Nomic that every person in the world has falsely claimed to be Agora's ambassador." would be ISIDTID. -- ais523
Re: DIS: A blatant attempt at blackmail
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 20:59 -0700, omd wrote: > Clarification: I forgot to state that the person who made the false > claim is the other player of Existential Nomic, so e's also the one > that has to be informed. This message contains the ISIDTID fallacy… -- ais523
Re: DIS: A blatant attempt at blackmail
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 5:04 PM, omd wrote: > H. Ambassador-At-Large ais523, it has come to my attention (because I > planned it) that someone has falsely claimed to a nomic (that I > started ten minutes ago) to be an ambassador of Agora. (Although the > nomic's rules[1] do not attempt to define how to contact it, since > such a definition might not be effective, I think it's reasonable to > assume that doing so is equivalent to making both players aware of a > nomic-related message; e made the claim to me.) > > For 2 rubles, I'll tell you this person's identity, so that you might > inform em of the claim's falsehood. Clarification: I forgot to state that the person who made the false claim is the other player of Existential Nomic, so e's also the one that has to be informed.
DIS: A blatant attempt at blackmail
H. Ambassador-At-Large ais523, it has come to my attention (because I planned it) that someone has falsely claimed to a nomic (that I started ten minutes ago) to be an ambassador of Agora. (Although the nomic's rules[1] do not attempt to define how to contact it, since such a definition might not be effective, I think it's reasonable to assume that doing so is equivalent to making both players aware of a nomic-related message; e made the claim to me.) For 2 rubles, I'll tell you this person's identity, so that you might inform em of the claim's falsehood. [1] "These are the two rules of the game of Existential Nomic: 1. The two players of Existential Nomic are me and you. 2. We can amend the rules by mutual agreement."
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012, omd wrote: > any player CAN transfer it to emself by announcement. [snip] > either destroy this amount of eir asset or transfer it to the > Lost and Found Department. > > with: > > destroy that amount of eir asset. Aw, I wanted to play with Free Parking.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 15:20 -0700, omd wrote: > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:10 PM, ais523 wrote: > > Why? > > Because it's silly. At least the FINE section was to make it possible to fine people assets that they couldn't destroy but could transfer (as, for instance, might be defined by a contract.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:10 PM, ais523 wrote: > Why? Because it's silly.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 15:04 -0700, omd wrote: > Proposal: Lost and Found (AI=2) > > Amend Rule 2166 (Assets) by replacing: > any player CAN transfer or destroy it without objection. > with: > any player CAN transfer it to emself by announcement. > Amend Rule 1504 (Criminal Cases) by replacing: > either destroy this amount of eir asset or transfer it to the > Lost and Found Department. > with: > destroy that amount of eir asset. Why? -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fix
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 09:56 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > That's why I didn't propose a fix when ais523 and I tried this. I > think the solutions that work are: > > (1) Forbidding any promise from cashing any other promise (breaks > basic functionality of allowing promises to be general currencies, > etc., so losing a lot of interesting but not-looping promise uses); > > (2) Putting specific protections on other quantities as they are > on assets (e.g. if a Switch is undetermined, it is Default). > Problematic as it may allow switching something to default when it's > otherwise not allowed. > > (3) Making any "infinite processes" (when evaluated at a "Later Time") > wholly fail, and also making Conditionals in Promises default to either > TRUE or FALSE (the way that bad conditional votes default to PRESENT). > > (4) Live with it, but make it Not Winning. What about forbidding /non-destructive/ promise cashing from promises (i.e. you can cash a promise recursively, but only if it's destroyed in the process), and also promise creation in promises? That way, you necessarily have a limit on any recursive process, but most non-scam forms of recursion are still possible. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fix
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012, omd wrote: > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Sean Hunt > wrote: > > The rest of this rule notwithstanding, a promise CANNOT be cashed, > > directly or indirectly, as a part of the outcome of cashing that same > > promise. > > What would this solve? The promise's text could include creation of > an identical promise before whatever else it was going to do. Or a trivially (but still functionally) different one; for example, "The condition for this promise being destroyed is -1 > N, where N is the number of promises so far created today". That's why I didn't propose a fix when ais523 and I tried this. I think the solutions that work are: (1) Forbidding any promise from cashing any other promise (breaks basic functionality of allowing promises to be general currencies, etc., so losing a lot of interesting but not-looping promise uses); (2) Putting specific protections on other quantities as they are on assets (e.g. if a Switch is undetermined, it is Default). Problematic as it may allow switching something to default when it's otherwise not allowed. (3) Making any "infinite processes" (when evaluated at a "Later Time") wholly fail, and also making Conditionals in Promises default to either TRUE or FALSE (the way that bad conditional votes default to PRESENT). (4) Live with it, but make it Not Winning. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Fix
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> CFJ: { I can cash a promise named A Million Bucks. }
For completeness, since this is phrased like a turtle, any reason you
think this should be UNDECIDABLE as opposed to UNDETERMINED?
DIS: Re: BUS: Fix
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: > The rest of this rule notwithstanding, a promise CANNOT be cashed, > directly or indirectly, as a part of the outcome of cashing that same > promise. What would this solve? The promise's text could include creation of an identical promise before whatever else it was going to do.
