DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
On 27 September 2012 02:23, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Clerk's Docket Date of this report: Thu 26 Sep 12 Date of last report: Thu 23 Aug 12 (All times are UTC) Unqualified (Rule 1868) --- All of these players are supine, except as noted. Inactive: ais523 (sitting) Arkady BobTHJ SNIP CoE: I am active
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:34 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: [This currently definitely conflicts with Rule 105 (Rule Changes) and might conflict with Rule 2140 (Power Controls Mutability), as the Rulekeepor is not an instrument.] I would assume that it does not conflict with Rule 2140, as the title of a rule does not affect its operation—with the possible exception of Rule 2141, as assigning a title to Rule 2141 can cause the Rulekeepor to avoid being in violation of Rule 2141. —Machiavelli
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Benjamin Schultz ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com wrote: If you wanted a dictatorship in the true spirit of Agora, try scamming a non-player into the dictator position. -- OscarMeyr Bucky?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, omd wrote: On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Also: fun's fun, but I will also deregister if scshunt persists in these changes. Consider that an objection, as well. Oh, come on. Although I feel obliged to counter-scam (not that it's particularly likely to work, since we already elected em dictator...), Imperial Nomic is one thing Agora *hasn't* tried in the last 5 years or so. Eh, I admit it was an initial kneejerk over a Mousetrap, I was coming around to it anyway; you put more eloquently than I could have. Antony indeed. I'll bite and play First Citizen for a bit. Though I'll say that I'm concerned about any of R101; getting rid of fair CFJs is more of a concern than a mousetrap to me, and the single biggest thing that would cause me to leave. dictatorship scams are sufficiently few and far between that I don't really remember the details of any; Really? You and I, at least, had the same opportunity last year, but didn't use it out of sportsmanship (I guess). Very ironically, I think scshunt deregistered when I got escalated to 3 last year (apologies if I'm misremembering that, scshunt, but if that was you, it's just a wee bit two-faced). It's interesting. As the Town Fountain leader, I was actually all for playing Dictator back then, but I was talked down by fellow conspirators: You don't want to repeat LW, do you Goethe? That time, it was a far less apathetic crowd, and persisting would have lost half the participating, active players. This time, it's apathy that brought us here in the first place, so maybe a shakeup is deserved. Maybe I've bought into that don't rock Agora attitude too much over the last few years. Shakeup can be good: at least it might stop the ho hum, let em have a dictatorship, I can't be bothered to fight and e'll just give emself a Patent Title apathy. Actually, this is the closest I've seen to (but still much less extreme than) Lindrum World. No comparison. What made LW special wasn't that it was a dictatorial large-scale rules change. The thing was, Lindrum's moves were UNDECIDABLY illegal, in that half the players were just plain old convinced that Lindrum had cheated and so the game wasn't being played any more. Here, there's no comparison. I haven't seen any serious legal arguments that the scam failed. Incidentally, this is why a lack of fair and impartial judicial system is the deal-breaker for me, not mousetrapping. Otherwise, the whole game is just arbitrary and capricious, and Not Fun. As a side note, pre-LW, Nomic World really was paralyzed due to massive problems with the initial ruleset - it was the first online nomic AFAIK and things that worked in Suber just failed there. In that sense, pre-LW was much more like B is. Everyone agreed the rules were broken, and we just couldn't figure out how to start it again. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Benjamin Schultz ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com wrote: If you wanted a dictatorship in the true spirit of Agora, try scamming a non-player into the dictator position. -- OscarMeyr Bucky? I believe the Secretary of State would be most traditional.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, Craig Daniel wrote: On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Benjamin Schultz ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com wrote: If you wanted a dictatorship in the true spirit of Agora, try scamming a non-player into the dictator position. -- OscarMeyr Bucky? I believe the Secretary of State would be most traditional. I'd say MwoP.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, Sean Hunt wrote: I thought quite closely about the Prerogative of Prejudice. I wanted something cool and powerful, but not entirely absurd. My rationale is that Prejudice is not truly a just punishment, and should not be considered a judicial resolution to controversy per R101. I'm reading Prejudice through a few times and may have some comments; but I agree, I'm not so concerned about criminal mechanics - even unfair ones if they're basically playable - as I would be about R101 (inquiry) cases. So that's all good. So if people really don't want these changes to happen, I won't press them, but I think that in the long run they'll be good for Agora. Wholly agree with removing cruft and scrapping half-systems that aren't working right now. And I agree the scam has given you the prerogative to decide on the next framework. And that it's worth trying a shift in tradition, such that scam-winning players shouldn't feel guilty about flexing their muscles a bit. So other than pointing out little bugs if I spot them I think on reflection it's more than fair, and very possibly for the good of the game, to wholly defer to you in setting tone/flavor/ mechanics, including any Imperial mechanics. Carry on, Sire. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, Sean Hunt wrote: I thought quite closely about the Prerogative of Prejudice. I wanted something cool and powerful, but not entirely absurd. My rationale is that Prejudice is not truly a just punishment, and should not be considered a judicial resolution to controversy per R101. I'm reading Prejudice through a few times and may have some comments; but I agree, I'm not so concerned about criminal mechanics - even unfair ones if they're basically playable - as I would be about R101 (inquiry) cases. So that's all good. Sorry, I'd forgotten that there was another R101 right in play, and that is Every person has the right to cause formal reconsideration of any judicial determination that e should be punished. Prejudice could bump up against it, but hopefully it would be interpreted as not truly being judicial (although it is clearly Judicial ;) ). -scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: Public consultation period
On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 14:06 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote: This is a Victory Announcement: The rule entitled 'Win by Junta' states that I can cause it to make arbitrary rule changes by announcement, therefore I satisfy the Winning Condition of Dictatorship. This almost certainly has to reference Open It Up somewhere. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, Sean Hunt wrote: On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, Sean Hunt wrote: I thought quite closely about the Prerogative of Prejudice. I wanted something cool and powerful, but not entirely absurd. My rationale is that Prejudice is not truly a just punishment, and should not be considered a judicial resolution to controversy per R101. I'm reading Prejudice through a few times and may have some comments; but I agree, I'm not so concerned about criminal mechanics - even unfair ones if they're basically playable - as I would be about R101 (inquiry) cases. So that's all good. Sorry, I'd forgotten that there was another R101 right in play, and that is Every person has the right to cause formal reconsideration of any judicial determination that e should be punished. Prejudice could bump up against it, but hopefully it would be interpreted as not truly being judicial (although it is clearly Judicial ;) ). It's been pointed out that formal reconsideration could easily mean Have Mercy, Sire!
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Public consultation period
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 2:09 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 14:06 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote: This is a Victory Announcement: The rule entitled 'Win by Junta' states that I can cause it to make arbitrary rule changes by announcement, therefore I satisfy the Winning Condition of Dictatorship. This almost certainly has to reference Open It Up somewhere. -- ais523 6130 was indeed Open It Up and was the way that I amended Win by Junta to give me my power-2 dictatorship. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Public consultation period
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, Sean Hunt wrote: On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 2:09 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 14:06 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote: This is a Victory Announcement: The rule entitled 'Win by Junta' states that I can cause it to make arbitrary rule changes by announcement, therefore I satisfy the Winning Condition of Dictatorship. This almost certainly has to reference Open It Up somewhere. -- ais523 6130 was indeed Open It Up and was the way that I amended Win by Junta to give me my power-2 dictatorship. scshunt: I just want to be clear about something. I see where you make yourself speaker, but I've missed the place where you remove yourself from having power-3. Where does that happen? -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 11:59 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, Sean Hunt wrote: Enact a rule with power 1 reading 'Anyone other than Machiavelli CAN, with 2 support, cause this rule to amend itself by replacing all instances of the name Machiavelli with any other person's name.' I create a Slave Golem named a person announcing or supporting intent to do so. I announce my intent, with 2 support, to cause the Rule with the text indicated by scshunt, above, to amend itself by replacing all instances of the name Machiavelli with the name 'a person announcing or supporting intent to do so'. Don't ruin your opportunity here. It looks usable for a counterscam, given that we can insert arbitrary text into a rule without escaping. (Only just spotted this.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, ais523 wrote: On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 11:59 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, Sean Hunt wrote: Enact a rule with power 1 reading 'Anyone other than Machiavelli CAN, with 2 support, cause this rule to amend itself by replacing all instances of the name Machiavelli with any other person's name.' I create a Slave Golem named a person announcing or supporting intent to do so. I announce my intent, with 2 support, to cause the Rule with the text indicated by scshunt, above, to amend itself by replacing all instances of the name Machiavelli with the name 'a person announcing or supporting intent to do so'. Don't ruin your opportunity here. It looks usable for a counterscam, given that we can insert arbitrary text into a rule without escaping. I create Robert; DROP TABLES; Once slave golems disappear, do we have a rules-sanctioned way to create persons with arbitrary names? If we don't immediately, IMO might as well just use it now instead of waiting and hoping for a chance again.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Public consultation period
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: I just want to be clear about something. I see where you make yourself speaker, but I've missed the place where you remove yourself from having power-3. Where does that happen? -G. I'll do it by announcement before repealing the dictatorship. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 12:11 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, ais523 wrote: On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 11:59 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, Sean Hunt wrote: Enact a rule with power 1 reading 'Anyone other than Machiavelli CAN, with 2 support, cause this rule to amend itself by replacing all instances of the name Machiavelli with any other person's name.' I create a Slave Golem named a person announcing or supporting intent to do so. I announce my intent, with 2 support, to cause the Rule with the text indicated by scshunt, above, to amend itself by replacing all instances of the name Machiavelli with the name 'a person announcing or supporting intent to do so'. Don't ruin your opportunity here. It looks usable for a counterscam, given that we can insert arbitrary text into a rule without escaping. I create Robert; DROP TABLES; Once slave golems disappear, do we have a rules-sanctioned way to create persons with arbitrary names? If we don't immediately, IMO might as well just use it now instead of waiting and hoping for a chance again. I don't think so. (Although you can alter the name of an existing person.) I meant, though, that the scam reward rule still needs to be in a modifiable-by-support state to be able to inject rules text into it and, say, defeat the dictatorship, if that's something you wanted to do. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, ais523 wrote: On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 12:11 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, ais523 wrote: On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 11:59 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, Sean Hunt wrote: Enact a rule with power 1 reading 'Anyone other than Machiavelli CAN, with 2 support, cause this rule to amend itself by replacing all instances of the name Machiavelli with any other person's name.' I create a Slave Golem named a person announcing or supporting intent to do so. I announce my intent, with 2 support, to cause the Rule with the text indicated by scshunt, above, to amend itself by replacing all instances of the name Machiavelli with the name 'a person announcing or supporting intent to do so'. Don't ruin your opportunity here. It looks usable for a counterscam, given that we can insert arbitrary text into a rule without escaping. I create Robert; DROP TABLES; Once slave golems disappear, do we have a rules-sanctioned way to create persons with arbitrary names? If we don't immediately, IMO might as well just use it now instead of waiting and hoping for a chance again. I don't think so. (Although you can alter the name of an existing person.) I meant, though, that the scam reward rule still needs to be in a modifiable-by-support state to be able to inject rules text into it and, say, defeat the dictatorship, if that's something you wanted to do. Ah, yes. I create a slave golem named scshunt CAN deregister. G. can cause this rule to amend itself by announcement. No one
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Ah, yes. I create a slave golem named scshunt CAN deregister. G. can cause this rule to amend itself by announcement. No one Since slave golems are supposed to be repealed in the same set of actions as the creation of the Machiavelli rule, I don't see how this will work. Personhood and Playerhood of Nomics isn't in the list of rules to repeal, though, so you can just make a nomic. (Incidentally, I just noticed that once the changes are enacted, that rule will purport to give all nomics voting rights, but fail due to precedence.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Ah, yes. I create a slave golem named scshunt CAN deregister. G. can cause this rule to amend itself by announcement. No one Now I am conflicted. On the one hand, I don't want to just give someone else a dictatorship. On the other hand, I don't want to just enact a dictatorship with my dictatorship... Sean
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, omd wrote: On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Ah, yes. I create a slave golem named scshunt CAN deregister. G. can cause this rule to amend itself by announcement. No one Since slave golems are supposed to be repealed in the same set of actions as the creation of the Machiavelli rule, I don't see how this will work. Personhood and Playerhood of Nomics isn't in the list of rules to repeal, though, so you can just make a nomic. (Incidentally, I just noticed that once the changes are enacted, that rule will purport to give all nomics voting rights, but fail due to precedence.) The rule says the text needs to be the name of a person. Once a name has been associated with a person, that text is still the name of a particular person even if that person ceases to exist. So we associate the text with a person name now, before we lose a method of creating persons with arbitrary names. Once associated, the actual change can be made even after golems cease to be. That's the theory, anyway.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, omd wrote: On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: The rule says the text needs to be the name of a person. Once a name has been associated with a person, that text is still the name of a particular person even if that person ceases to exist. It's not the name of a person if the entity in question is not a person any more. Not at all. We've been through this extensively in terms of unique names for past proposals, past patent titles, and all kinds of past entities. The names continue to identify the unique (former) entities. Is Abraham Lincoln the name of a person? Yes it is.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, Sean Hunt wrote: On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Ah, yes. I create a slave golem named scshunt CAN deregister. G. can cause this rule to amend itself by announcement. No one Now I am conflicted. On the one hand, I don't want to just give someone else a dictatorship. On the other hand, I don't want to just enact a dictatorship with my dictatorship... Weary and troubled is the conscience of a king... :P
DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: Enact a rule with power 1 reading 'Anyone other than Machiavelli CAN, with 2 support, cause this rule to amend itself by replacing all instances of the name Machiavelli with any other person's name.' Eh, lemme suggest changing this. 'Anyone other than Machiavelli CAN, with 2 support, cause this rule to amend itself by replacing all instances of the name Machiavelli with any other person's name, as long as the new name clearly identifies that person.' The name scshunt CAN deregister. G. can cause this rule to amend itself by announcement. No one, despite being a perfectly valid name, does not clearly identify the Slave Golem with that name. —Machiavelli, who thinks that scshunt CAN deregister. G. can't cause this signature to amend itself by announcement. No one can frob his neft.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Is Abraham Lincoln the name of a person? Yes it is. I'd say it's arguable - well, maybe a clearer example, since dead persons can be considered persons (but aren't in Agora), is whether Bill Clinton is the name of a world leader: the answer depends on the context of the question, but can easily be no, it's the name of a former world leader, who doesn't enjoy the same privileges as a real world leader. I don't remember any CFJs related to this, do you have one?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 5:23 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Is Abraham Lincoln the name of a person? Yes it is. I'd say it's arguable - well, maybe a clearer example, since dead persons can be considered persons (but aren't in Agora), is whether Bill Clinton is the name of a world leader: the answer depends on the context of the question, but can easily be no, it's the name of a former world leader, who doesn't enjoy the same privileges as a real world leader. I don't remember any CFJs related to this, do you have one? Ah, but at no point will the slave golem be a non-person. It will merely go from existing (as a person) to not, without passing through existence as a former person along the way. Mr. Clinton, meanwhile, still exists, and is not (currently) a world leader.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On 09/28/2012 04:29 PM, Craig Daniel wrote: On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 5:23 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Is Abraham Lincoln the name of a person? Yes it is. I'd say it's arguable - well, maybe a clearer example, since dead persons can be considered persons (but aren't in Agora), is whether Bill Clinton is the name of a world leader: the answer depends on the context of the question, but can easily be no, it's the name of a former world leader, who doesn't enjoy the same privileges as a real world leader. I don't remember any CFJs related to this, do you have one? Ah, but at no point will the slave golem be a non-person. It will merely go from existing (as a person) to not, without passing through existence as a former person along the way. Mr. Clinton, meanwhile, still exists, and is not (currently) a world leader. Is John F. Kennedy a world leader?
