Re: DIS: All hail Rule 104
On 7 February 2014 05:43, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 10:58 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: The existence and current interpretation of R104 directly demonstrates, via a current Rule, that a game ended in the past while Agora continued. (And you thought we just kept that around for fun). Either that or Michael Norrish is currently the speaker. Just because assuming Michael Norrish is not the speaker would lead to a contradiction, we don't have proof that e is the speaker.
Re: DIS: All hail Rule 104
On Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: On 7 February 2014 05:43, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 10:58 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: The existence and current interpretation of R104 directly demonstrates, via a current Rule, that a game ended in the past while Agora continued. (And you thought we just kept that around for fun). Either that or Michael Norrish is currently the speaker. Just because assuming Michael Norrish is not the speaker would lead to a contradiction, we don't have proof that e is the speaker. It's actually settled law (supported by factual evidence) that the First Game ended, a new Speaker took the position, and Agora continued. (it's documented in at least one CFJ; no database up right now so don't remember which one). -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Current Game Report
On Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Alex Smith wrote: + 9 2 2 1 0 i (Now Philomory has no operators, I have no operators but one 'i', and my score is 0+92210i.) Opinions sought on game balance: should we implement omd's suggestion of limiting huge jumps by allowing a max of P operators in a given weekly play (I'd guess a P of 4)? Other suggestions welcome (or happy to let it play out). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Current Game Report
On Fri, 2014-02-07 at 04:16 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Alex Smith wrote: + 9 2 2 1 0 i (Now Philomory has no operators, I have no operators but one 'i', and my score is 0+92210i.) Opinions sought on game balance: should we implement omd's suggestion of limiting huge jumps by allowing a max of P operators in a given weekly play (I'd guess a P of 4)? Other suggestions welcome (or happy to let it play out). -G. Barring new operators, that would make winning basically impossible, but it's better than we have now. Strategy atm is entirely about how many digits you can string together into a large number. Getting anything other than a digit is pretty much just a wasted operator (except that you need at least one + or - to actually use them, but that's common). -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Current Game Report
On Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Alex Smith wrote: + 9 2 2 1 0 i (Now Philomory has no operators, I have no operators but one 'i', and my score is 0+92210i.) Opinions sought on game balance: should we implement omd's suggestion of limiting huge jumps by allowing a max of P operators in a given weekly play (I'd guess a P of 4)? Other suggestions welcome (or happy to let it play out). -G. A P of 4 means it takes at least 1000 weeks to win, seems a tad much. Except that I see a possible loophole. Operator clearly doesn't mean the same as operator in math, since people are using digits, even in sequence. Which means, what happens if you use _only_ digits as your operators, once you've got a positive integer score? Also what if you squeeze an i in the middle of a sequence of digits, mathematically that's most likely to mean multiplication... Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Current Game Report
On Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Ørjan Johansen wrote: Except that I see a possible loophole. Operator clearly doesn't mean the same as operator in math, since people are using digits, even in sequence. Which means, what happens if you use _only_ digits as your operators, once you've got a positive integer score? Also what if you squeeze an i in the middle of a sequence of digits, mathematically that's most likely to mean multiplication... I was wondering when someone would try a multiplication doing that. The reason I made these complex numbers (rather than a coordinate system) is that I wanted to promote rotations and other interesting complex operations. Maybe as defense (rotate someone to the wrong sector)? Are there some good primarily-defensive operators we might add?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Current Game Report
On Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Alex Smith wrote: On Fri, 2014-02-07 at 04:16 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Alex Smith wrote: + 9 2 2 1 0 i (Now Philomory has no operators, I have no operators but one 'i', and my score is 0+92210i.) Opinions sought on game balance: should we implement omd's suggestion of limiting huge jumps by allowing a max of P operators in a given weekly play (I'd guess a P of 4)? Other suggestions welcome (or happy to let it play out). -G. Barring new operators, that would make winning basically impossible, but it's better than we have now. Well, impossible using the basic grind out addition anyway... pending new rules being added... Strategy atm is entirely about how many digits you can string together into a large number. Getting anything other than a digit is pretty much just a wasted operator (except that you need at least one + or - to actually use them, but that's common). Maybe tweak frequencies on numbers a bit. And maybe P of 6 not 4? I expected the unlimited version to be a build-up to big jumps, but it's the pillaging that really accelerated it.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Speaker] Judicial List
On 2014-02-06 15:28, Kerim Aydin wrote: Followup: here's my judicial list (combining people standing/sitting in the old system who have posted since Jan 1 with people so far expressing interest): ais523, G., woggle, omd, Tiger, Shredder, Murphy. (Sprocklem, Nichdel, Yally would be good additions based on recent activity level, but leaving them off until they say 'yea'). -G. I want to be on your list. -- Sprocklem
Re: DIS: All hail Rule 104
On 2014-02-07 7:13 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: It's actually settled law (supported by factual evidence) that the First Game ended, a new Speaker took the position, and Agora continued. (it's documented in at least one CFJ; no database up right now so don't remember which one). -G. Yes, previous tradition says the game continues. How was that even in dispute? The question is whether under the _current ruleset_, which has changed a lot, winning the game ends it. -Dan
