Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3344 assigned to scshunt
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: Does anyone have an argument as to why this is not in fact UNDECIDEABLE? I'm thinking that there must be exactly one Speaker, but there is nothing to indicate who that Speaker is, so it may as well be Michael Norrish just as it might be, say, Dave Levac. Well, it's similar to the paradox CFJ in being somewhat based on the split between logical/literalist versus realistic legal views - although with three different options. The extreme logical view is indeed that the rule states there is a Speaker, so we must act as if there is a Speaker, but whether e is any particular person is undefined: UNDECIDABLE. On the other hand, I claim that in a real legal system, faced with a law that stated clearly that there must be a Speaker, a judge would likely try quite hard to interpret the rest of the laws to come up with some identity for the Speaker: possibly TRUE, possibly FALSE, depending on a somewhat arbitrary decision. In the center, if such a judge failed to find a Speaker, e would rule that despite the law saying there is one, there is not: FALSE. Since nomic tends to value paradoxes but not mere ambiguity, and this is not a true paradox, and since Agora has a strong realistic strain of thought competing with its logic-bomb side, I would probably not judge UNDECIDABLE myself (and probably not TRUE either, despite my suggestion that the statement might be true).
DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified
On 19 Jun 2013 06:30, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: As an aside, I find it funny that I still think of Roujo as a new player, despite the fact that e has been playing for two and a half years now and that only two players have last registered longer ago. I still think of myself as a newbie. Agora is old and slow. -- Walker
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 Jun 2013 06:30, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: As an aside, I find it funny that I still think of Roujo as a new player, despite the fact that e has been playing for two and a half years now and that only two players have last registered longer ago. I still think of myself as a newbie. Agora is old and slow. I sometimes think of everyone who registered after me (6 years ago) as a newbie. Of course we have at least one player who played Agora's spiritual predecessor and made vaguely precedential posts 15 years before that, so...
DIS: Agora XX: 3rd report
Good day Agorans, Since last report there were four proposals, and two new registrations, Chuck and ehird. The rules have not yet been changed. The four proposals were numbered 301-304 and voting closes in about 13 hours. The five Voters now are omd, FSX, Walker, Chuck, and ehird. Then there's me, I am Speaker. None of us have any points yet. The latest Voter, ehird, also observed that he was tired, and wished us a nice day. He then went on to made a bold claim that his observation does not count as an action, though he refused to comment on whether wishing us a nice day counts as an action, or whether making the claim that something does not count as an action itself counts as an action. See our Opinions Editorials section for more insights. Cheers, Daniel Mehkeri
DIS: Friendly reminder to Wes
You have been assigned to CFJs 3318 and 3329, and you're overdue in your judgements. Are you planning on delivering them anytime soon? ~ Roujo
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, omd wrote: On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 Jun 2013 06:30, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: As an aside, I find it funny that I still think of Roujo as a new player, despite the fact that e has been playing for two and a half years now and that only two players have last registered longer ago. I still think of myself as a newbie. Agora is old and slow. I sometimes think of everyone who registered after me (6 years ago) as a newbie. Of course we have at least one player who played Agora's spiritual predecessor and made vaguely precedential posts 15 years before that, so... 15 years before nomic world? I was 6.
Re: DIS: Friendly reminder to Wes
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Jonathan Rouillard jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote: You have been assigned to CFJs 3318 and 3329, and you're overdue in your judgements. Are you planning on delivering them anytime soon? *blink* We missed those somehow. Yes, we'll tackle those today or tomorrow, along with the newly assigned CFJ. Our apologies for missing it initially. Silly work has been distracting us. --Wes
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 7426-34
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: scshunt registered on or about Mon Apr 1 18:04:26 UTC 2013, and has been continuously registered from that time to the time the first intent to ratify this text was published. Machiavelli became inactive on or about Mon May 13 22:38:10 UTC 2013, and has been continuously inactive from that time to the time the first intent to ratify this text was published. G., I believe this was completed a few days after your CFJ was initiated, but would this change your judgment if it was re-initiated? -scshunt
Re: DIS: Friendly reminder to Wes
No problem. I don't blame you, either - it's been a bit hectic these last days. ~ Roujo On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Wes Contreras w...@antitribu.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Jonathan Rouillard jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote: You have been assigned to CFJs 3318 and 3329, and you're overdue in your judgements. Are you planning on delivering them anytime soon? *blink* We missed those somehow. Yes, we'll tackle those today or tomorrow, along with the newly assigned CFJ. Our apologies for missing it initially. Silly work has been distracting us. --Wes
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 7426-34
scshunt wrote: On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: scshunt registered on or about Mon Apr 1 18:04:26 UTC 2013, and has been continuously registered from that time to the time the first intent to ratify this text was published. Machiavelli became inactive on or about Mon May 13 22:38:10 UTC 2013, and has been continuously inactive from that time to the time the first intent to ratify this text was published. G., I believe this was completed a few days after your CFJ was initiated, but would this change your judgment if it was re-initiated? It was completed here: http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2013-June/031344.html shortly before CFJ 3337 was initiated. Whether G. took it into account, I don't know.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Lateral transfer
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, Ed Murphy wrote: Proposal: Lateral transfer Amend Rule 2138 (The Interstellar Associate Director of Personnel) by changing Interstellar to Interdimensional in its text and title. Hey hey now...no rank jumping... Intergalactic please.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Lateral transfer
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Proposal: Lateral transfer
Amend Rule 2138 (The Interstellar Associate Director of Personnel) by
changing Interstellar to Interdimensional in its text and title.
Proposal: Scoping It Out (AI=1, PF=20)
{{{
Amend Rule 2138 by appending:
Any player CAN, with Agoran Consent, cause this Rule to amend
itself by replacing
Interstellar with any other single word beginning with Inter
in its text and title.
}}}
-scshunt
Proposal: Scoping It All (AI=1, PF=20)
{{{
Amend Rule 2128 by appending:
The IADoP can be referred to by substituting Interstellar with
any other single word beginning with Inter.
}}}
~ Roujo
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: I sometimes think of everyone who registered after me (6 years ago) as a newbie. Of course we have at least one player who played Agora's spiritual predecessor and made vaguely precedential posts 15 years before that, so... 15 years before nomic world? I was 6. Grammar oops - by 'that' I intended to refer to my own registration.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified
On 19 Jun 2013, at 20:12, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, omd wrote: On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: I sometimes think of everyone who registered after me (6 years ago) as a newbie. Of course we have at least one player who played Agora's spiritual predecessor and made vaguely precedential posts 15 years before that, so... 15 years before nomic world? I was 6. Grammar oops - by 'that' I intended to refer to my own registration. Heh. Was thinking about it just now, I personally classify players by era: 1. Nomic World (to 1993); 2. Agora but departed pre-2001 (when I joined, maybe Murphy has more eras here); Is this era based on your perspective, or did a large number of players leave before 2001? 3. Massive Economic System (1999-2002); 4. Interregnum (2003-2006); 5. Massive Contract System (2007-2010); 6. Second Interregnum (2011-present). Anyone joining before #6 is an old hand I think, I mean, if you suffered through the contract wars you are my brother... well, except ehird... Do you think of an interregnum as characterised by a lack of activity, or just a lack of stability? Or is it just the lack of a 'massive system'? For me, this kind of long term perspective is really interesting to read (even a short list of eras). In fact, this sort of thing has always been my favourite type of post to read on the discussion forum. Despite having first registered in April 2009, it seems that I don't have that long term perspective at all yet. The idea of a contract system seems more 'obvious' to me, for example. One might think that it is the kind of thing that arises fairly naturally out of any long running nomic. I'm inclined to think that a contract system is the sort of thing we ought to always have around, but older players might feel like it's all been done before. I'd love to hear players' views on what causes these eras (if you don't think they are just arbitrary labels), or rather what makes a particular system stable enough to make it last that long. Does Agora simply create new things that interest it and repeal things that bore it, or is there something deeper there? I look forward to the game becoming interesting again in 2015. Any ideas, anyone? -- Walker
DIS: Agora XX: Proposal
I propose that the following rule be created: No rule may award or penalize players based on their votes on proposals whose voting period ended before or at the same time as the time at which the current form of said rule took effect. Chuck
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3337 judged FALSE by G.
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, Alex Smith wrote: On Wed, 2013-06-19 at 13:31 -0700, omd wrote: On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 1:11 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: As Assessor, I note that means Murphy's most recent attempts to resolve 7435-7443 were correct. In particular, 7436 was adopted, scshunt's attempts to award Lime Ribbons for 7436 were valid, and 7437-7443 all failed quorum, except for 7442, which did not exist. Out of those, I gratuitously determine that 7441 (Vigintennial stuff) is probably too stale (it was originally distributed almost a month ago), but return the rest (7437-7440 and 7443) to the Proposal Pool per R2350. CoE: I can't do this because it's been more than 7 days. Roujo, ais523, woggle, Walker, scshunt, Machiavelli, you're on your own. Time to do a total copout, I guess, given that I'm not paying enough attention to sort this out by myself: For each colour of ribbon, I attempt to award myself a ribbon of that colour. I think instead of kudos, we should start awarding dope slaps. Or maybe give the Herald a rubber chicken.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote: I'd love to hear players' views on what causes these eras (if you don't think they are just arbitrary labels), or rather what makes a particular system stable enough to make it last that long. Does Agora simply create new things that interest it and repeal things that bore it, or is there something deeper there? There is more variation than those eras suggest. Two suberas of the massive contract system era were sustained, as I remember it, almost singlehandedly by BobTHJ and his steam-powered gamestate tracking machine - not that we wouldn't have done some of the same things without em, but the massive spurt of activity at the time was promoted by eir willingness to track many fast-moving quantities. Both times, I think things subsided around the same time as his deregistration, although correlation is not causation... Right now, I think we have a lot of activity compared to several months ago and some new rules despite not having many fundamental changes since then. Why? Maybe just natural cyclic patterns of interest: after a break, people are ready for more, and there is a positive feedback loop. But enough speculation, here's a pretty graph of proposal count per month (don't want to use the domain for these incidental purposes, but qoid.us is temporarily down): http://agoranomic.org/propgraph/pg.html
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3337 judged FALSE by G.
On Wed, 2013-06-19 at 13:43 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, Alex Smith wrote: For each colour of ribbon, I attempt to award myself a ribbon of that colour. I think instead of kudos, we should start awarding dope slaps. Or maybe give the Herald a rubber chicken. Well, I was hoping to start an interesting argument about whether that even works. (I can see a reasonable argument that it doesn't.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, Charles Walker wrote: On 19 Jun 2013, at 20:12, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Heh. Was thinking about it just now, I personally classify players by era: 1. Nomic World (to 1993); 2. Agora but departed pre-2001 (when I joined, maybe Murphy has more eras here); Is this era based on your perspective, or did a large number of players leave before 2001? My perspective entirely. By the registrar's report, there were many players between 1993-2001 that I never knew except by name/rumor, and I can't say if there are eras in that time period. 3. Massive Economic System (1999-2002); 4. Interregnum (2003-2006); 5. Massive Contract System (2007-2010); 6. Second Interregnum (2011-present). Do you think of an interregnum as characterised by a lack of activity, or just a lack of stability? Or is it just the lack of a 'massive system'? Mainly lack of a single coherent system that was central to all play for a long time. Which also might translate as 'stability', too: there were systems during the first interregnum (cards comes to mind) but none lasted more than a year or so. Some of these started or ended abruptly (e.g. Zephram's CFJs on playerhood starting the contract era) and some petered out (the 'massive economic system' just sort of petered out before it was repealed). I'd love to hear players' views on what causes these eras (if you don't think they are just arbitrary labels), Style of play is one thing. Check out the transition around Jan 2007 here: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/case_count.php It would be cool to plot enactments/repeals like this... omd have you made plots like this from your database? rather what makes a particular system stable enough to make it last that long. Does Agora simply create new things that interest it and repeal things that bore it, or is there something deeper there? It's a mystery for me. I don't know what made the first Cards successful and the second one die. Dunno why some economic system worked and some didn't. Proposal manipulation to more chambers than 1 or 2 seems to always flounder. Dunno why! Any ideas, anyone? High hopes for Yaks! I'd let it stabilize a bit before adding massively to it (i.e. maybe add more good things to buy/sell, but not tacking major major additional systems on yet). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, omd wrote: http://agoranomic.org/propgraph/pg.html Well, yes. Yes you have.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, omd wrote: http://agoranomic.org/propgraph/pg.html Well, yes. Yes you have. Incidentally, just fixed that graph to deal with H. Former Promotor Machiavelli's crazy Unicode subject lines.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote: It's a mystery for me. I don't know what made the first Cards successful and the second one die. Reading omd's comments I'm going to throw out one answer to this one: When you have a dedicated recordkeepor who keeps on top of (effectively gamemasters) a new system, including reminding people of possible moves or making rewards on their behalf, that's a strong strong plus.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: Meanwhile, VCs all reset whenever anyone's voting limit becomes high enough. It /is/ possible to get a win via VCs (although we should reintroduce a Clout rule so that it can be done via a method less disruptive than knocking everyone else's voting limit down to 0 then distributing a dictatorship/win proposal) We do have a Clout rule: Rule 2381/1 (Power=1.7) Win by Clout If a single Player has a voting limit on an Agoran Decision that has a Chamber, and that voting limit, at the end of the Decision's voting period, is greater than the combined voting limits of all other entities on that decision, that player satisfies the Victory Condition of Clout. in addition to the DVLOP thing. However, I don't think it is possible to increase one's voting limit to = 12, so it's almost impossible to achieve.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified
On 19 June 2013 20:12, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Anyone joining before #6 is an old hand I think, I mean, if you suffered through the contract wars you are my brother... well, except ehird... Hah! My plan all along was to destroy the UNDEAD! And it worked!
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, Alex Smith wrote: I'm not sure how typical or atypical I am of Agoran players, but it seems reasonable that there are other people with similar mindsets to me. I know that economies with no reset buttons and lifetime accumulation are often considered unfair, but if an economy isn't of that form, players like me are unlikely to participate. I think you would have liked that old economic system very much - taxes were there but low (and at the discretion of officers thus subject to election pressure) and some currencies accumulated over 2+ years without reset. For myself (and I think you and I have talked about this before) winning isn't much. What I like is having periods of time where I have a greater say in building the game rules - e.g. uneven voting structures, but ones with enough stability for planning moves. So I like it when winning confers some advantage, for example Speakership with some real powers. It's not exactly that I like power per se, I just like gameplay that includes power dynamics as the main prize. Though I'm not so fond of doing it by scam, prefer if the game setup and the intent of the game is what gets you there. Also of course, as a game, want to keep power turning over and temporary! Personally, the AAA was one of the most boring periods of play for me; just couldn't get into it and was basically out of it for the length of time that went on. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, omd wrote: Distribution fees suck. I think distribution fees only work if they're high enough that people genuinely take time and proto everything, and maybe reach out to opponents before finalizing, so their final proposal is just right. Low fees are mostly a nuisance. -G.
DIS: Agora XX: Proposals 301, 302, 304 pass. 303 fails.
Hello, Voting is closed on these. Full report in about 10 hours, but the following happens: 301 (by Chuck) passes (FOR: Chuck,Walker,ehird; AGAINST: omd) - 301 amends 211. - Chuck +(random 1-10 6) and omd +2 by 301. 302 (by Walker) passes (FOR: FSX,Walker,ehird; AGAINST: omd,Chuck) - 302 amends 301. - Walker +10, omd +2, and Chuck +2 by 302. 303 (by Chuck, TRANSMUTATION) fails (FOR: FSX,Walker,ehird,Chuck; AGAINST: omd) 304 (by omd) passes (FOR: Walker,ehird,Chuck,omd) - new rule - omd +10 by 302. Walker,ehird,Chuck,omd +30 by 304. - 304 repeals itself. -Dan
DIS: Agora XX: Proposal 305
Hello all, Here I'll only number and repeat the one proposal made that hasn't yet been numbered. You can vote by just replying to this message, privately if you like. Voting on this closes in 24h. -Dan 305 (Chuck): I propose that the following rule be created: No rule may award or penalize players based on their votes on proposals whose voting period ended before or at the same time as the time at which the current form of said rule took effect.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: Proposal 305
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote: 305 (Chuck): I propose that the following rule be created: No rule may award or penalize players based on their votes on proposals whose voting period ended before or at the same time as the time at which the current form of said rule took effect. Present; has the potential to break rules that legitimately reward players for votes when they happen to be amended while voting periods are in progress.
DIS: Winning vs. stopping others from winning
On 19/06/2013 6:14 PM, omd wrote: I don't care about winning, at least the way wins usually work in Agora ... (as opposed to wins such as paradoxes which somewhat cheapen the whole concept) Hey! Aren't you about to win by CFJ 3334? But I'm glad to hear people's thoughts on this topic. Now, usually to win it is necessary to stop others from winning. Around here the two things are often unrelated. Win by paradox seems like a perfect example, it looks like it basically does nothing, so this doesn't affect anyone else's chances of winning in the slightest. To what extent do people try to stop others from winning? -Dan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3337 judged FALSE by G.
On 19/06/2013 4:43 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: I think instead of kudos, we should start awarding dope slaps. Or maybe give the Herald a rubber chicken. Maybe you need a sort of anti-Herald to hand out this kind of anti-award. I dunno, some sort of Fool perhaps.
DIS: XX: Due proposte
I propose that a rule be enacted as follows: A player may transfer points to another player by posting to that effect on the mailing list. I further propose that Rule 112 be made mutable.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3337 judged FALSE by G.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: Time to do a total copout, I guess, given that I'm not paying enough attention to sort this out by myself: For each colour of ribbon, I attempt to award myself a ribbon of that colour. Why would this fail? Unreasonable amount of effort to sort it out? -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3337 judged FALSE by G.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: Time to do a total copout, I guess, given that I'm not paying enough attention to sort this out by myself: For each colour of ribbon, I attempt to award myself a ribbon of that colour. Why would this fail? Unreasonable amount of effort to sort it out? I believe precedent is that since it would not make a significant difference in the 'spam factor' of the message to write it out explicitly (since it's just 14 actions), the abbreviation does not fail. In general we never prohibit abbreviations that expand to a short, well-defined list of actions.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: Proposal 305
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote: Hello all, Here I'll only number and repeat the one proposal made that hasn't yet been numbered. You can vote by just replying to this message, privately if you like. Voting on this closes in 24h. -Dan 305 (Chuck): I propose that the following rule be created: No rule may award or penalize players based on their votes on proposals whose voting period ended before or at the same time as the time at which the current form of said rule took effect. I register for Agora XX and vote FOR.
