Re: DIS: Re: OFF: The game
I'm not actually participating in the game, so that was deliberate. If somebody wants to actually submit the customary new player cfj, go for it. On Fri, Nov 27, 2015, 1:06 PM Edward Murphy wrote: > On 11/26/2015 7:36 AM, Craig Daniel wrote: > > > Cfj: the below represents an expression of intent to become a player > > under the name of "G", posted to a public forum. > > NttPF > > >
DIS: Re: OFF: The game
Cfj: the below represents an expression of intent to become a player under the name of "G", posted to a public forum. On Thu, Nov 26, 2015, 6:03 AM ais523 wrote: > On Tue, 2015-11-24 at 15:50 -0500, Goodwin Lu wrote: > > Hello, I believe you are the listing to Agora Official. If that is not > > you, ignore this message.How would I join the current nomic game? > > > > Signed sincerely, G > > You can join the game by sending a message to a public forum indicating > that you want to join the game. The normal public forum to use for the > purpose would be agora-business (you can legally do it in > agora-official, but agora-official is conventionally used only for > officer reports). > > -- > ais523 > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Returning Officer] Party Rules
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Fool wrote: > On 01/09/2013 5:14 PM, Charles Walker wrote: >> >> On 1 September 2013 22:13, Craig Daniel wrote: >>> >>> COE: missing the Ludocratic Party, which formed earlier today. >> >> >> Admitted. > > > CoE^2: no it didn't. Zombie-induced gerontocracy. I see nothing in the Gerontocracy rule that prevents me from successfully forming a party or otherwise carrying on ordinary Agoran gameplay, although I see how a group of five Elders could choose to step in and make it not happen. Care to explain what I'm overlooking? - teucer
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ludocratic Party
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Joe Stefek wrote: > I support NttPF. (That means "Not to the Public Forum", note that the reply-to field of agora-business is agora-discussion because this is usually desirable, but a-d doesn't count for taking game actions.)
Re: DIS: nommit challenges you to a game of chess!
Right. You can also get very different gameplay starting from precisely the same initial rules - look at Agora vs. B in the era when its ruleset was derived from an Agoran one. That's because even if the rules start the same, they evolve - that's what makes it nomic! On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Jonathan Rouillard wrote: > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Max Schutz wrote: >> wait explain how the deuce they are faster than us at proposals a nomic is a >> nomic is a nomic isn't it >> >> > > A nomic I've played (in meatspace, mind you) had a proposal turnaround > time of about 30 seconds. The player read eir proposal aloud, people > voted on it immediately and we moved on. > > Nomic isn't a specific game, really, it's a class of self-modifying > games. You can get very different games (BlogNomic vs Agora vs B) > which are still all nomics. > > ~ Roujo
Re: DIS: nommit challenges you to a game of chess!
I dunno, "officer can do it with Agoran Consent" seems pretty thoroughly Agoran to me. On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Benjamin Schultz wrote: > I think it would be properly Agoran to have our move adopted by proposal. > Though we would need some mechanism to resolve simultaneous proposals. > > -- > OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: nommit challenges you to a game of chess!
I think it would be up to each nomic how to come up with its moves. On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Max Schutz wrote: > wait would we discuss aech move as a group before submission or is there > just one player who makes those decisions > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 1:04 PM, James Beirne > wrote: >> >> C-walker and I have been discussing the possibility of a nommit-Agora >> chess game as an initial attempt at internomic relations. Basically, each >> nomic would have a (part of a) rule that looks like this: >> >> The nommit-Agora chess game is played between those two nomics. Each nomic >> shall submit its move to the other within [time period] of receiving the >> other's last move. The winner of the game is awarded the Internomic Chess >> Trophy. >> >> Or something to that effect. Each nomic would have its own mechanism for >> deciding moves. nommit will likely have an informal discussion to reach >> consensus. C-walker suggested that Agora might wish to create an office. >> >> Anyway, nommit's been a bit slow lately, so I was hoping to propose >> something to nommit soon. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> - Ienpw III, nommitian Outlander-Speaker > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Tibetan Contest
Proto: Contestkeepor. On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Mon, 19 Aug 2013, Charles Walker wrote: > >> The Contestmastor > > > AAA! It should only apply to -keepor dammit! :( > > Greetings, > Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Sure Why Not
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, Craig Daniel wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> > >> > On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, Craig Daniel wrote: >> >> If a person has sufficient active volition to continue submitting the >> >> set of messages to the PF that eir houngan asks for... >> > >> > Ah, you're talking about a more general type of zombiehood than >> > the current promises. I agree, if a zombie gives a controller eir email >> > password, just not much to be done. See CFJ 1719. >> >> Right, these promises are merely an easy shortcut. There's no r101 >> right to take shortcuts anywhere just because getting there is >> possible. > > Promises are more than a shortcut. They are regulated and public > in action and provide legal protections for both parties. This is the > sort of thing we can tighten up significantly. > > If you went to your friend and said hey, give me your email I want to > send messages on your behalf, I bet you'd have a tougher sell. I would actually contend that if I borrow a friend's account and purport to post from it, if I'm caught by the game my friend isn't acting. In this case, the promise system (which, I agree, is a lot more than just a shortcut) is being used by the zombies to not have to put in nearly so much effort to do their masters' bidding. But the right to choose to do somebody else's bidding to the extent that you are able to act is a necessary consequence of the right of forum participation, just one that's highly unlikely to be invoked if it takes consistent effort beyond single posts.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Sure Why Not
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, Craig Daniel wrote: >> If a person has sufficient active volition to continue submitting the >> set of messages to the PF that eir houngan asks for... > > Ah, you're talking about a more general type of zombiehood than > the current promises. I agree, if a zombie gives a controller eir email > password, just not much to be done. See CFJ 1719. Right, these promises are merely an easy shortcut. There's no r101 right to take shortcuts anywhere just because getting there is possible.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Sure Why Not
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, Craig Daniel wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> > On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, Craig Daniel wrote: >> >> ...I further note, btw, that Will and Ian are both people I had >> >> previously pointed out the existence of Agora to, and I've pointed >> >> them both at the rules so they can review those. >> > >> > Yeah, the r101 bar is a very low one to clear, but you'd be surprised >> > that some folks never show up again when reached out to. Ultimately >> > if someone wants to be a zombie, not much to prevent it other than >> > requiring some direct maintenance from time to time. >> >> I would, in fact, contend that true zombie prevention would disrupt >> r101 rights of people who wish to be zombies. > > How so? (Which rights protect the right to be zombies?) If a person has sufficient active volition to continue submitting the set of messages to the PF that eir houngan asks for, eir right of participation in the fora is violated by any method that prevents this. But to have such a right protect eir zombie status, the person would have to want to continue being a zombie badly enough to put ongoing effort into it. (Note that a rule which makes non-zombie status a condition of playerhood would not prevent persons from posting to the fora, and playerhood is *not* an r101 right, so if formalized that would be a valid way of minimizing the impact of zombies on the game.) - teucer
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Sure Why Not
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, Craig Daniel wrote: >> ...I further note, btw, that Will and Ian are both people I had >> previously pointed out the existence of Agora to, and I've pointed >> them both at the rules so they can review those. > > Yeah, the r101 bar is a very low one to clear, but you'd be surprised > that some folks never show up again when reached out to. Ultimately > if someone wants to be a zombie, not much to prevent it other than > requiring some direct maintenance from time to time. I would, in fact, contend that true zombie prevention would disrupt r101 rights of people who wish to be zombies.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Sure Why Not
...I further note, btw, that Will and Ian are both people I had previously pointed out the existence of Agora to, and I've pointed them both at the rules so they can review those. (Minionizing them is actually in part a secret ploy to get them to figure out what the heck they just did and maybe take their own actions in the nearish future. Which, Will and Ian, if you've registered for the discussion list and thereby seen me admit this and thereby damaged the secrecy of the ploy in question, I've probably already succeeded, haven't I, so there.) On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Craig Daniel wrote: > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, Charles Walker wrote: >>> On 14 Aug 2013, at 22:14, Craig Daniel wrote: >>> >>> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Charles Walker >>> > wrote: >>> >> On 14 Aug 2013, at 22:06, Craig Daniel wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> I'd suggest the same, if I were an elder and thus empowered to do so. >>> >>> (I'd've even suggested it after Sam, who might after all turn out to >>> >>> be a real person who for some reason just happens to share an e-mail >>> >>> address with Walker.) >>> >> >>> >> Sam is a real person, who happens to be in my house and who used my >>> >> email address to save me from logging out. (And because I wasn't sure >>> >> whether only subscribers could post to the lists.) >>> > >>> > Convincing people who did not previously play to sign up for the lists >>> > long enough to post is not especially hard. (Just ask Will and Ian.) >>> >>> Maybe so, but if they don't bother to subscribe, they're still people. >> >> Again, given the nature of the convincing, CFJ 1856 is relevant regardless >> of whether email is independent. >> > > I suggest contacting* Will, Ian, and Sam, and asking the three of them > about the manner in which they were persuaded to take their various > actions. You'll find Will and Ian acted of their own free will rather > than because they were under any contractual obligation to do so, and > their behaving according to a request from a friend is no different > from how established players often collaborate. I'm sure you would > find similar things about Sam, if you had any way of contacting em > other than by talking to Walker. > > *I'd be mildly surprised by any of the three reading this list with > any regularity, so contacting them by personal mail is probably > necessary.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Sure Why Not
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, Charles Walker wrote: >> On 14 Aug 2013, at 22:14, Craig Daniel wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Charles Walker >> > wrote: >> >> On 14 Aug 2013, at 22:06, Craig Daniel wrote: >> >> >> >>> I'd suggest the same, if I were an elder and thus empowered to do so. >> >>> (I'd've even suggested it after Sam, who might after all turn out to >> >>> be a real person who for some reason just happens to share an e-mail >> >>> address with Walker.) >> >> >> >> Sam is a real person, who happens to be in my house and who used my email >> >> address to save me from logging out. (And because I wasn't sure whether >> >> only subscribers could post to the lists.) >> > >> > Convincing people who did not previously play to sign up for the lists >> > long enough to post is not especially hard. (Just ask Will and Ian.) >> >> Maybe so, but if they don't bother to subscribe, they're still people. > > Again, given the nature of the convincing, CFJ 1856 is relevant regardless > of whether email is independent. > I suggest contacting* Will, Ian, and Sam, and asking the three of them about the manner in which they were persuaded to take their various actions. You'll find Will and Ian acted of their own free will rather than because they were under any contractual obligation to do so, and their behaving according to a request from a friend is no different from how established players often collaborate. I'm sure you would find similar things about Sam, if you had any way of contacting em other than by talking to Walker. *I'd be mildly surprised by any of the three reading this list with any regularity, so contacting them by personal mail is probably necessary.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Sure Why Not
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Charles Walker wrote: > On 14 Aug 2013, at 22:06, Craig Daniel wrote: > >> I'd suggest the same, if I were an elder and thus empowered to do so. >> (I'd've even suggested it after Sam, who might after all turn out to >> be a real person who for some reason just happens to share an e-mail >> address with Walker.) > > Sam is a real person, who happens to be in my house and who used my email > address to save me from logging out. (And because I wasn't sure whether only > subscribers could post to the lists.) Convincing people who did not previously play to sign up for the lists long enough to post is not especially hard. (Just ask Will and Ian.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Sure Why Not
I'd suggest the same, if I were an elder and thus empowered to do so. (I'd've even suggested it after Sam, who might after all turn out to be a real person who for some reason just happens to share an e-mail address with Walker.) On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > If I weren't a zombie, I'd suggest a gerontocracy about now... > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Enter Minion Two
Neither Will nor Ian is me reregistering. They are both real people who know me and are acting of their own volition (albeit in ways suggested to them by me). On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Max Schutz wrote: > wait what the deuce what is with people who are already registered > re-registering > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, Ian O'Dea wrote: >> > I register. I create the following persistent, revocable promise, >> > entitled "Moar Zombies!": Text: I act as specified by the >> > casher in the cashing message. Cashing conditions: the casher is teucer, >> > and the specified action(s) are not ILLEGAL. >> >> Sock puppets should note create != submit. >> >> >> >
Re: DIS: [Ambassador-at-Large] Note on nommit
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:51 PM, James Beirne wrote: > > Absolutely! Nothing wrong with it, any more than there's something > wrong with playing two games of chess at once. > > Now I'm getting ideas for Bughouse nomic > > Any rule that gets repealed from Nomic A becomes a part of Nomic B?
Re: DIS: [Ambassador-at-Large] Note on nommit
Yes. When such an attempt is underway, it's not uncommon for the nomic on the receiving end to try to quickly pass a rule barring players of the other from joining. Sometimes that even works. Agora has never been invaded that I'm aware of, but is still a little paranoid about it and has more robust mechanisms for trying to stop such things in a hurry. Gerontocracy is the current preference; restricting voting on many proposals to a subset of players designated as Senators is another one that was around for an extended period, and I'm sure people who actually play this specific game a bunch can tell you others that have been used. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Max Schutz wrote: > well i heard something about being in multiple nomics and people using > that to try and take over a nomic > > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Jonathan Rouillard < > jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Craig Daniel wrote: >> > Absolutely! Nothing wrong with it, any more than there's something wrong >> > with playing two games of chess at once. >> > >> > Less, even, since outside of showing off it's considered polite to give >> the >> > one chess game you're in all your attention until it ends. >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Max Schutz >> wrote: >> >> >> >> so we are allowed to be part of more than one nomic at once? >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Charles Walker >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> nommit has gone into a convention. Seems like a good time to join. >> >>> >> >>> http://www.reddit.com/r/nommit/comments/1k8d78/new_game_convention/ >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> Well, unless there's a rule in one of the Nomics that prevent you from >> joining another. =P >> >> ~ Roujo >> > >
Re: DIS: [Ambassador-at-Large] Note on nommit
Absolutely! Nothing wrong with it, any more than there's something wrong with playing two games of chess at once. Less, even, since outside of showing off it's considered polite to give the one chess game you're in all your attention until it ends. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Max Schutz wrote: > so we are allowed to be part of more than one nomic at once? > > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Charles Walker < > charles.w.wal...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> nommit has gone into a convention. Seems like a good time to join. >> >> http://www.reddit.com/r/nommit/comments/1k8d78/new_game_convention/ >> > >
DIS: [Attn: Ambassador] Tangenomic
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?690987-Tangenomic-VI Tangency is the off-topic forum on RPG.net (requires registration, is free). It's tried playing nomic in-forum, several times. This is the most recent attempt, is brand new, and is about to resolve a proposal declaring itself a protectorate. (It will vote yes - two votes are in out of three players, and both are affirmative.) - teucer
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (corrected) Judgement: CFJ 3383
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Tanner Swett wrote: > Oh, and further arguments: I think that the "please treat Agora right good > forever" clause is vague enough that it should not be punishable in cases of > negligence, but only in cases of actual malice. > > —Machiavelli I opine that a small amount of actual malice seems like a reasonable interpretation of Fool's actions. However, I do think 21 days is a bit much.
DIS: Re: OFF: Judgement, CFJ 3381
::applause:: On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 4:36 AM, Alex Smith wrote: > > - Teucer's counterscam failed to allow em to repeal rules > (no opinion on whether it's a paradox) I note that, while you profess no opinion, you pointed out the way in which it very probably fails to create a paradox - I stepped into the same timing bug you mention Fool falling victim to. Ah, well. - teucer
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Possibly Registrar] Census
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 8:24 PM, Max Schutz wrote: > wait we have to re-register again No. Well, not unless Wooble.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: posture
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Max Schutz wrote: > wait why are you cfj'ing this Because that is the customary way of resolving matters of ambiguity.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3381 assigned to ais523
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-08-06 at 10:24 -0400, Craig Daniel wrote:
>> The above is intended primarily to weigh in on the subject of the
>> success of Fool's scam. However, just in case it was buggy (case 2 or
>> 4 above), I submit the following two promises:
>>
>> {{
>> Title: I've had the time of my life
>> Text: I transfer 1 Yak to the casher
>> Cashing condition: Casher is a first-class player.
>> Destruction by author condition:
>>The promise titled "and the life of my time" CAN be destroyed by
>> its author with notice.
>> }}
>> {{
>> Title: and the life of my time
>> Text: I transfer 1 Yak to the casher
>> Cashing condition: Casher is a first-class player.
>> Destruction by author condition:
>> Either the titled "I've had the time of my life" CANNOT be destroyed
>> by its author with notice, or the author of this promise can cause the
>> rules to repeal themselves by announcement.
>> }}
>
> Because these promises no longer have much of a use (they were used for
> a one-off counterscam), and yet Teucer cannot easily destroy them, I
> cash these promises.
They're actually mostly not for counterscam purposes, as I don't claim
they actually have any scammy effect. (Rather, I claim that their
destroyability is paradoxical, and therefore I ought to be able to get
a win by paradox in the near future. I'm mildly surprised Fool didn't
think of this first, but e was too focused on the dictatorship
interpretation.)
Re: DIS: Proto: newbie friendliness
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Charles Walker wrote: > On 6 August 2013 16:57, Craig Daniel wrote: >> The Tutor is an office whose holdor is responsible for maintaining the >> Tutorial. The Tutor CAN edit the Tutorial at any time, and SHOULD do >> so as necessary to keep it current and accurate. The Tutor also SHALL >> make sure the current text of the Tutorial is easy for prospective >> players to find. >> >> The Tutorial is a document which describes, in plain language, the >> mechanics it is necessary to know to start playing Agora. This >> document SHOULD emphasize how to start participating meaningfully >> before you've learned all the fiddly bits, SHOULD cite rule numbers to >> look up the details of things it explains, and SHOULD cover, at a >> minimum, how to call for judgement and what that's for, how to vote on >> Agoran Decisions, when objections and support are relevant, and what >> subgames exist and where in the ruleset to find them. It SHOULD also >> be as concise as is reasonable. >> >> Thoughts? > > As I said in irc, I'm actually writing this document at the moment, > along with an FAQ and a Glossary. The proto also includes a friendly > ruleset format. Yep. It's a very natural implementation of concepts being discussed in the Ambassador's survey thread, and I'm glad to see I'm not the only one interested in making it happen - and I'm quite glad that somebody competent to actually do it is already working on it. (I think I could probably write about a third of the relevant documents, but haven't payed close enough attention to Agora recently enough to get the rest right.) - teucer
DIS: Proto: newbie friendliness
The Tutor is an office whose holdor is responsible for maintaining the Tutorial. The Tutor CAN edit the Tutorial at any time, and SHOULD do so as necessary to keep it current and accurate. The Tutor also SHALL make sure the current text of the Tutorial is easy for prospective players to find. The Tutorial is a document which describes, in plain language, the mechanics it is necessary to know to start playing Agora. This document SHOULD emphasize how to start participating meaningfully before you've learned all the fiddly bits, SHOULD cite rule numbers to look up the details of things it explains, and SHOULD cover, at a minimum, how to call for judgement and what that's for, how to vote on Agoran Decisions, when objections and support are relevant, and what subgames exist and where in the ruleset to find them. It SHOULD also be as concise as is reasonable. Thoughts? - teucer
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Possibly Registrar] Census
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Charles Walker wrote: > On 5 August 2013 20:49, omd wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >>> An alternate viewpoint: >> >> CoE since ratification will probably be fixed in the next week: in the >> normal universe, this is incorrect for obvious reasons. > > Can someone please give me a counterargument to "When created, > switches have their default values" == "new switches have their > default values"? The only one I can see is that the publicity switch was not ever newly created, merely newly defined as being a switch. - teucer
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: speak your mind
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 12:46 AM, Max Schutz wrote: > as long as that rule set becomes more accessible in its current state and > length it is borderline insane Agora has a long history of being borderline insane. (This in contrast to B, where there was nothing borderline about it.)
Re: DIS: Future of Agora
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Elliott Hird wrote: > On 4 August 2013 09:43, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> I'm not going to tell you that you *can't* have the fun of reconstructing >> your own personal "platonic" state (to each eir own), but if it bogs us >> down and distracts us from actually playing based on our own current >> (non-platonic) consensus of the gamestate, then I'll go recruit some >> Postmodern Literary Critics to play. Just watch me. :P. > > The intention was for it to be done off the main lists, and of course > consensus judgements will be involved at some point -- but I think > foresight of major incidents and a likely increase degree of > carefulness compared to the early days of the game will make the state > somewhat more accurate than what we believe. And it's mostly to pacify > my true B player nature; of course it doesn't actually matter. The funny thing about your "true B player nature" is that I'm fairly sure B is Platonically stuck in an era when it isn't actually very Platonic at all. It certainly didn't used to be.
Re: DIS: Future of Agora
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Elliott Hird wrote: > On 4 August 2013 05:01, Craig Daniel wrote: >> Man, I've tried that with B. Server discontinuities make it more >> difficult than it's likely to be for Agora, to the point where as far >> as I can tell the gamestate is that we're in a maybe-fixable emergency >> but don't know which emergency procedures to use. > > As far as I know B's mail archive is more complete than Agora's. Also, > of course, B doesn't have 20 years of mail. So I suspect it's even > harder for Agora. Yeah, it seems like a pain either way. B has the problem that early rulesets aren't archived, at all, and the earliest ones that are are very hard to chase down. (Wooble has done a better job than I have.)
Re: DIS: Future of Agora
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 10:13 PM, Elliott Hird wrote: > On 4 August 2013 02:54, wrote: >> You may argue that after this long, there is probably *some* other reason >> why the platonic gamestate is wrong, and a few have been proposed over the >> years. But we try our best. > > If sufficient mail archives were obtained, I for one would find it an > interesting long-term collaborative project to attempt to reconstruct > the current platonic gamestate of Agora from scratch, with the goal of > figuring out how to align it with what we've been assuming the > gamestate is at the end. Man, I've tried that with B. Server discontinuities make it more difficult than it's likely to be for Agora, to the point where as far as I can tell the gamestate is that we're in a maybe-fixable emergency but don't know which emergency procedures to use. - teucer
DIS: Re: BUS: Question for Platonists (not about dictators)
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 22:45 -0400, Fool wrote: >> I submit the following proposal: >> >> === >> Agora pulls a B (AI=3.1, PF=0, disi.) >> >> In rule 1551 (Ratification, Power=3.1), replace the sentence: >> >>Ratifying a public document is secured. >> >> with: >> >>Ratifying a public document is secured with Power threshold 3. >> >> [ Question for Platonists: When was the last time anything actually >> ratified? ] > > This badly needs fixing in both the scam-succeeded and scam-failed > gamestates, for us to have much of a chance of being able to > reconstruct. The best option is probably for the Promotor to resign so > that Fool can assume it in both gamestates and distribute the proposal. Alternately, both Promotors can purport to distribute it with the same number at about the same time.
Re: DIS: Would I be an Elder if I registered?
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 5:32 PM, omd wrote: > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Matt Berlin wrote: >>> An Elder is a first-class player who has been registered continuously for >>> at least 32 days >> >> Future Perfect Progressive Tense ( ie, happened in the past, is still going >> on, and may continue in the future) requires the present participle of the >> verb. I don't think "registered" would work for this ( has been >> registering doesn't make sense). > > That's not what the future perfect progressive tense is... The future perfect progressive isn't even a tense, as the perfect, progressive, and perfect progressive are technically all aspects. (The future is debatable; some English syntacticians claim it as a tense, mostly because that's what it is in most other European languages, while others opine that future time is something conveyed in a purely semantic manner and that the auxiliary verbs "will" and "be going to" indicate expectation on the part of the speaker and need not refer to future time, pointing to future-time sentences the speaker regards as certain and how they are primarily formed in the aorist/present tense.) Regardless of what you call it, though, the future perfect progressive of a verb X in English clearly refers to that which would be formed "will have been Xing" or "is going to have been Xing", which does not even necessarily imply that any Xing has yet occurred or that there is any chance of it happening in the future (though one of the two is logically necessary). - teucer
Re: DIS: Proto-proposal: Igora
I'm reminded of the PGo subgame from B Nomic back before everything crashed. Not sure if I can dig up exactly how that worked, but it would be worth looking at (it was one of B's greatest hits, IMO). - teucer On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Tanner Swett wrote: >> >> Hm. I like the land metaphor; let me retheme the proposal around it (and >> make some other cosmetic tweaks while I'm at it) > > > I think alliances should be a different rule; they may have other > application (and it would be cool if multiple aspects of gameplay interacted > via alliances, so a move in one place would have consequences elsewhere). > > -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It tolls for B
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Elliott Hird wrote: > On 25 February 2013 19:10, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to flip the Recognition of >> B Nomic to Abandoned. > > Having recently come out of a slump, B is just now getting moving > again. It has always and will always have recently come out of a > slump. It will always be just now getting moving again. So what you're saying is, its nomicwiki entry should say StartingUpStatus.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 5:23 PM, omd wrote: > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Kerim Aydin 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 Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Benjamin Schultz > 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.
DIS: Re: BUS: New Gameplay Ho!
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 9:01 PM, Elliott Hird wrote: > This is a dictatorship acting well outside of the limited, > reward-focused bounds a scam should go. > > I deregister. This is a scam that frightens off ehird. I register. (NttPF status intentional.)
DIS: Re: BUS: Name Change
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 6:02 PM, moonroof wrote: > Oh, and if it is not too much trouble, I would like to change my nickname > from WoodsPam to moonroof. (I am known as moonroof on BlogNomic). CFJ: It's not too much trouble. (Hey, we just had an uncontroversial registration, gotta find something to be arbitrarily controversial about.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A meta-CFJ
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > The "might reasonably" makes this so squishy as to be trivially true; > all we have to show is that there is at least one cfj that might be > interpreted this way, and I think we've got at least one in the > database. -G. > So it does. It's been so long since I played nomic that I need to brush up on my tightly-phrasing-everything skills.
Re: DIS: A useless but kind of neat proto
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 2:23 PM, ais523 wrote: > On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 09:51 -0500, Tanner Swett wrote: >> Raison d'être: I recently learned about STM, so I want to use it everywhere. > > B Nomic had this rule for ages. Or rather, we thought it did. - teucer
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Was planning to fix anyway...
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Sun, 23 Oct 2011, ais523 wrote: >> On Sun, 2011-10-23 at 14:01 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> > Also take: >> > 1. Person A has 99 hard-earned points, 1 point short of a win; >> > 2. Person B is mad at A, and illegally gets Person A one point >> > and declares em the winner. >> > If there's no "knowingly", then this would screw person A pretty >> > badly. Yes, with "knowingly", it would be possible for A to be in >> > on it but pretend to have no knowledge, but better to err on that >> > side I think. >> >> Actually, there's a big issue here. What if A /is/ in on it, but doesn't >> personally break any rules? What if A points out that anyone else could >> illegally get em a point, and makes a Promise rewarding anyone who will >> do so, but doesn't take other actions towards making that last point >> possible? What if B ceases to be a person immediately after performing >> the action in question, so that they can't be criminal-cased against? (I >> believe comex used this loophole once.) What if A owns a badly-worded >> promise authored by B and uses it to cause B to illegally get them a >> point? > > If you look back at the proposed rule, "knowingly party to a Rules > breach" is a fairly general phrase so as to (I hope) cover Person A > performing such manipulations that might cause B to make the breach. > Wording changes welcomed but it's meant to cover these things > (given that the above become known to the judge; there's not a lot > we can do about secret knowledge one way or the other). Hm. I think the term you want is "willingly" - I can watch something happen that benefits me through a rules breach that I then become party to, seeing it all happen and knowing it has, without being able to stop it. This particularly holds if promises can make somebody break the rules - it may turn out to be the case that somebody can actually be forced into breaking the rules, knowingly but without wanting to.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Was planning to fix anyway...
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 4:42 PM, ais523 wrote: > On Sun, 2011-10-23 at 16:36 -0400, Craig Daniel wrote: >> (I also do like stripping cheaters of *all* Champion titles, much as >> the Olympics strip them of medals even from before the cheating.) > I'm personally worried about people accidentally breaking the rules > while trying to win, in which case deChampioning all the wins would be > awful. Best to just disallow the single win with no stigma beyond that > from breaking the rule in the first place. It does say "knowingly," which would be a difficult thing to rule on for a judge. It would be easier to strike that part, and if you do, only blanking the one win would be the logical approach.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Was planning to fix anyway...
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Sun, 23 Oct 2011, ais523 wrote: >> On Sun, 2011-10-23 at 13:15 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> > Any person who wins the game while knowingly breaking a Rule, >> > or while knowingly being a party to a Rules breach, where the >> > breach is directly and substantially responsible for the win, >> > commits the Class-4 Crime of Ungamesmanship. If any party is >> > found GUILTY of this crime, then, once the judgement has been >> > in effect for one week, the Herald SHALL, as part of the >> > punishment, revoke any Champion title awarded to the guilty >> > parties, and award them the patent tile Cheater. >> >> I don't like the patent title here, as it'll just encourage people to >> attempt to get it (in a perverse way). Everything else looks fine. > > Wondered about that. I really want to mark "cheaters" with something > thatis a true and beyond-immediate-criminal-penalty badge of shame, and > make it clear that it's not part of the tradeoff - someone who wins this > way is truly breaking the rules. No honor, just: "X is a cheater." Is > it even possible to make one that doesn't have a perverse incentive? > Make it a separate class of thing from a patent title, maybe? For example, add a clause to the rule simply defining a "cheater" as somebody who has committed Ungamesmanship, with no title or list of cheaters. That would make it possible to entirely factually refer to somebody as one, with a rule-defined meaning behind the accusation, while also keeping there from being any kind of report it is perversely desirable to get o. Ideally, it shouldn't be like a hall of infamy to aspire to, merely a fact of the universe that a certain person is known to cheat. (I also do like stripping cheaters of *all* Champion titles, much as the Olympics strip them of medals even from before the cheating.) - teucer
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on impossibility
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > If so, it means that self-ratification is simply an admission that, > in spite of R1698, we are not in fact playing a nomic, but rather > playing a system where we can arbitrarily make any change by > unanimous consent (to ignore the falsehood), regardless of whether > the proposal process exists. In other words, we've formally > agreed to accept any metagame falsehood as long as consent to > accept it is unanimous; this is hardly a comfortable position for > a nomic to be in. > On the contrary, it means that self-ratification is a mechanism by which the gamestate can be changed without bound by common consent - and that this is one of the game's built-in methods of self-amendment, which seems entirely nomic-appropriate to me. - teucer
Re: DIS: but
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, ais523 wrote: >> Wasn't there a proto a while back to call them persimmons? It was meant >> as an anti-scam feature, but it might be more interesting as a basis for >> an economy. Probably we should start off with just one type of them, but >> if it's a success probably we'll end up branching out into multiple >> types eventually. > > In the "turnabout is fair play" category we should call them Gnomes. You could even steal a past version of how gnomes work. I recommend against the ones that are actually notes in disguise.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: lull
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > > I think the only thing we can do now is to add time travel. > Hell, a good set of time travel rules might well lead to me joining again.
Re: DIS: lull
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Elliott Hird wrote: > yeah. > Play B. It's just coming out of a slump.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Attempted tortoise
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Hmm, that parsing doesn't quite work with how we usually read CFJs.
> If I ask "if A then B" then I am asking for a judgement on what B is in
> the case where A is true. If it is impossible in our current universe/
> ruleset for A to be true, then we can't answer what the world would be
> like if A were true, and the right answer is either UNDETERMINED ("until
> I'm in a universe where A is true, I can't know what the judgement would
> be") or IRRELEVANT ("since we're not in a universe where A is true,
> it's not relevant to the rules/overly hypothetical").
In this case, we know that A cannot become true without the Chief Whip
not being the lost and found, so it seems logically appropriate (to
me) to presume that the hypothetical in which it happens includes the
Chief Whip changing hands.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Ambassador] Dead Nomics
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > I intend, without objection, to flip the Recognition of The Earth Is > Nonetheless an Oblate Spheroid Nomic to Abandoned. For the record: since nothing has been sent to me in forever on this one, I (as Speaker of Einos) discourage others from objecting to this one. - teucer
DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistrations
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > I intend, without objection, to deregister Teucer. Wait, I'm registered right now? Huh.
Re: DIS: let's shrink the ruleset...
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> If you don't propose and distribute those citrine repeals, I'll do it... >> let's >> get this ruleset shrunk (or at least propose it)! > > proto: adopt B's ruleset, then re-agorify it. > I become a player using the name Wooble. - teucer (and yes, this is intentionally nttPF)
Re: DIS: Proto: The Citrine Repeals
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 1:03 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: > Craig Daniel wrote: >> >> Do you really want some random foreign game that is using Agora for >> arbitration purposes to spam S-B with a hundred explicit consents >> every time it wants to tweak its rules? For that matter, do you really >> want to try to make such people register for a different mailing list >> just so that they can accept the rules tweak? > > a) I don't think a requirement that consent be public is required How else would you make it verifiably explicit? > b) They can always make the contract Mutable Would your proto allow Mutable contracts to remain binding even after they mutate?
Re: DIS: Proto: The Citrine Repeals
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:46 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: > Craig Daniel wrote: >> >> That would lead to contracts containing the phrase "SHALL consent," I >> suspect. > > Mutability would be a contract switch that could only be set with explicit > consent from all parties. Question: how do you square this with the notion Pavitra suggested of Agora, the superpower of nomics, being used for things not related to the play of Agora? Do you really want some random foreign game that is using Agora for arbitration purposes to spam S-B with a hundred explicit consents every time it wants to tweak its rules? For that matter, do you really want to try to make such people register for a different mailing list just so that they can accept the rules tweak? Also, how does this fix the problem of a contract requiring somebody to provide the consent it needs in order to mousetrap them when somebody else tries to edit it?
Re: DIS: Proto: The Citrine Repeals
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:33 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: > Aaron Goldfein wrote: >> >> Right, so what if we just said that players must always be allowed to >> leave a contract unless the text of that contract is immutable. I >> don't think there are more than a small number of mutable contracts >> that impose ongoing obligations on parties, and most of those don't >> really need to be mutable. > > How about an 'immutable' contract can be amended with all parties' consent? > That would work. That would lead to contracts containing the phrase "SHALL consent," I suspect.
Re: DIS: Proto: The Citrine Repeals
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:09 AM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > > What if the rules simply said that players must always be allowed to > leave a contract? I'm sure that would break something, but what? > Any attempt to use contracts to get people to commit to binding obligations - which is to say, the one thing contracts are most often used for in the real world.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Ambassador] Foreign Relations
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Charles Walker > wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Charles Walker >>> wrote: Friendly B Nomic (http://www.nomic.net/~nomicwiki/index.php/B%20Nomic) >>> >>> I humbly request the Ambassador flip the Recognition of B Nomic to >>> Sanctioned in light of eir near-success at a declaration of war. >>> >> >> I didn't try to declare war, I just gained a dictatorship and happened >> to be Agora's Ambassador. >> >> I am working on a proposal which will flip B's recognition, though. > > I completely agree that you did not attempt to declare war. > > However, the citizenry (or one of them, anyways) decided otherwise, > and would have judged a state a war to have existed if e could have. > As a result, I ask that B Nomic be put under Sanctions for failing to > control its populace. An attempt was made to appeal the judgment, indicating that B's control against one person creating judicial decisions functioned as designed (or rather, was functioning when it was seen to be irrelevant due to technicalities). I see no failure here.
Re: DIS: a depressing thought
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:57 PM, comex wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:27 AM, comex wrote: >>> It is, in fact, POSSIBLE to transfer Rests to the Lost and Found >>> Department, by ceasing to be a person. (The question is, does such an >>> unreasonable method of action satisfy a CAN-sans-mechanism clause?) >> >> One second after sending this message, I will render myself incapable >> of communicating by email in English. > > In my interpretation, you'd have to be incapable (as opposed to > unwilling) continuously for four days. So: you can get rid of rests by committing suicide, or entering a coma, or travelling somewhere with no internet for an extended period.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Guilty conscience? -G. > Not that I remember, but maybe. Did I? You seem to have a better recall of my last time as an Agoran than I do...
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Elliott Hird wrote: > 2009/6/30 Kerim Aydin : >> Proposal 4432 by Maud, AI=1, Ordinary >> Invisibilitating >> >> Be it resolved, that the proposer of an adopted proposal (besides this >> proposal) including provisions that propose changes to parts of the >> gamestate information about which is not subject to publication in >> official >> reports, with the exception of the publication of that proposal by the >> Promotor and the Assessor, shall be guilty of the Class 0 Infraction of >> Invisibilitating. >> >> [Beware! You may still be guilty of this!] > > > wat? > ...you know, that crime sounds really familiar to me.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I'm so Errational
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 4:05 PM, > C-walker wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Craig Daniel wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Alex Smith wrote: >>>> On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 12:42 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, C-walker wrote: >>>>> > I change my name to "2.71828183..." or "e" for short. >> >> Generally the ellipsis indicates that the number continues beyond that >> point. In some recent proposals there is a relevant parallel with >> things like "Replace the paragraph beginning with "A player CAN..." ". > > Generally quotation marks around something mean that you mean > literally what is quoted. Of course, normally there's no ambiguity about which way it is meant. Here there is. So... perhaps the name change failed because it was ambiguous whether e meant the number e or the first few digits thereof and some punctuation.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I'm so Errational
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 12:42 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, C-walker wrote: >> > I change my name to "2.71828183..." or "e" for short. >> >> I'll accept 2.71828..., but don't you think picking the third-person >> singular pronoun 'e' might have some *slight* chance of being "a name >> that has generally been used to refer to another entity within the >> past three months"? > > Could be a potential wording scam here, given there's no entity in > particular that 'e' generally refers to in Agora, but instead, it's used > to refer to lots of different entities. > > (There was a CFJ a while ago (CFJ 2319) asking whether people saying 'e' > really meant the number: it was ruled that it referred to the number by > default, but only when this was reasonable, and it wasn't reasonable > anywhere in the rules. I wonder if C-walker's name change makes it > reasonable?) No, because technically I believe e changed eir name to a number slightly lower than the number e followed by an ellipsis, rather than to the number itself.
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2605 assigned to ehird
> music-currency [which can only mean Notes, in this context] to .kreig. > [which is the Lojban form of my real name, and the name by which I am > known in the Lojban community], who is .tefkros. [my preferred > Lojbanization of "teucer", based on the original Greek form of said > name, which is Феэкспт]. Parties cannot leave the contract." Observation: I could have sworn that when I sent out the e-mail that is the evidence, I specified the Greek form correctly, using Greek characters which transliterate as "Teukros." However, I see the above as instead containing Cyrillic characters which transliterate as "Fyeekspt," which is of course not my name. Did this munging happen before or after the evidence reached the forum? Is this reproduction of said evidence erroneous? - teucer, aka .kreig., aka .tefkros., aka Fyeekspt
Re: [s-b] DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Y'know, B Nomic doesn't have any second-class persons...
2009/6/21 Sean Hunt : > I'm not sure exactly what happened up there, but: > > - I disfavor all CFJs initiated in the quoted text > - I decline all nominations made in the quoted text > - I object to all dependent actions intended in the quoted text > - I support then withdraw support from all dependent actions intended > in the quoted text. > - I vote AGAINST or, if that is not an option, PRESENT on all Agoran > Decisions initiated in the quoted text > - I leave all contracts formed in the quoted text > - I intend, without objection, to terminate all pledges formed in the > quoted text. > - I intend, with 2 support, to appeal all judgments delivered in the > quoted text. > - I deregister the quoted text. > - I generally disagree to the rest of the quoted text. > All of these save CFJ initiation apply vacuously. And unlike Warrigal, I provided a translation of what I did. A contract was amended to attempt to keep people from leaving, but it's one you're already not part of. Only Warrigal and possibly David Slowed etc. are. - teucer/Craig/etc
Re: [s-b] DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Y'know, B Nomic doesn't have any second-class persons...
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Benjamin Caplan wrote: > > NttPF. > It was to the B public forum, which is also where it was first created; if this didn't work from Agora's perspective, then I believe it was also not successfully created in the first place. I copied a-d since there's been an attempt made to register it here (back when it was the Parti Bois) and so people are liable to care.
Re: [s-b] DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Y'know, B Nomic doesn't have any second-class persons...
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Craig Daniel wrote:
>
> I intend, without objection from any other parties (which would be me,
> C-Walker, and I think that's it at the moment, unless I overlooked
> something) to amend Parti Bois by replacing every instance of the
> string "Parti Bois" therein with "Bdi ta Askatasuna."
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Craig Daniel wrote:
>
> Also, I mistakenly typed "Bn support" - not a defined term in any
> game, I don't believe - in the text of the contract where I meant "Bn
> consent." I therefore intend, without objection from any member of the
> Parti Bois, to replace all instances of the phrase "Bn support" with
> "Bn consent" in the text of the Parti Bois contract.
>
Having received no objections, I implement both of these changes. The
contract now reads:
{
The name of this Partnership is the Bdi ta Askatasuna. Parties to this
contract SHALL NOT act in a way detrimental to the prospect of
restoring B Nomic's national sovereignty, and SHOULD take any
available actions to help restore said sovereignty. Members of the Bdi
ta Askatasuna SHALL act to ensure that it obeys all the rules of any
game of Nomic in which it is participating. Any party to this contract
CAN cause it to join any game of Nomic which permits its participation
by announcement. Any party to this contract CAN, with Bn consent among
its members or without objection by any member of this contract, act
on its behalf. Any party to this contract CAN amend it without
objection by any other member.
If the Bdi ta Askatasuna is a player of B Nomic and Supine in that
game, anymember CAN cause it to sit by announcement.
If the Bdi ta Askatasuna is a player of B Nomic and there exists an
ongoing election for the title of Ambassador in that game, any member
CAN cause the Bdi ta Askatasuna to nominate itself for that title.
}
Also, apologies to any Basque speakers for the fact that I forgot to
make the name anarthrous.
- teucer
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: no objections
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Benjamin Caplan wrote: > > The intent was for the same action (null string) both times. The > ambiguity shouldn't invalidate the action any more than the ambiguity of > attempting to transfer an unspecified one of several mutually-fungible > assets. > But iff he quotes the other one he can do nothing again.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: no objections
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Benjamin Caplan wrote: > Elliott Hird wrote: >> 2009/6/18 C-walker : >>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 2:21 PM, >>> C-walker wrote: -- C-walker, who intends, without objection >>> >>> Having received no objections, I do so. >>> >>> -- >>> C-walker >>> >> >> It was not to the public forum. > > I found at least two public messages on that date with that signature. In which case his actual doing of the action is ambiguous, isn't it?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering on behalf
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Warrigal wrote: > 2009/6/16 Elliott Hird >> 2009/6/16 Taral : >> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:43 AM, Elliott >> > Hird wrote: >> >> NOTE: this is scripted. Myndzi replies to all actions like that. No >> >> consent was involved. >> > >> > I'd say consent was involved in the writing of a script. >> > >> > -- >> > Taral >> > "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." >> > -- Unknown >> > >> >> He was not aware in any way of this. > > He was after the fact, when he said something along the lines of "this > is why I don't play nomic". Which may or may not be evidence relevant to the CFJs, since he claims he's not actually playing.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering on behalf
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Elliott Hird wrote: > > 2009/6/16 Taral : > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:43 AM, Elliott > > Hird wrote: > >> NOTE: this is scripted. Myndzi replies to all actions like that. No > >> consent was involved. > > > > I'd say consent was involved in the writing of a script. > > > > -- > > Taral > > "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." > > -- Unknown > > > > He was not aware in any way of this. Presumably the person involved was designing the script to be able to be used for strange things. I'd say consent is involved. Question, though: is myndzi's programmer a player?
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [s-b] Y'know, B Nomic doesn't have any second-class persons...
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > > I object. Change the name plz. > Would you, perhaps, prefer Bdi ta Asatasuna?
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [s-b] Y'know, B Nomic doesn't have any second-class persons...
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:41 AM, C-walker wrote: > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> >> I object in Agora. >> >> I'm pretty sure you can't get Agoran Consent in B, but in case this is >> a valid synonym for B's equivalent, I object there too. By the way, B >> doesn't currently allow non-first-class judges; the Agora amendment >> happened after the ruleset was stolen. >> > > I don't think it is, so I intend, with Consent, to register Parti Bois (in B). > I think you have to do that in s-b.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [s-b] Y'know, B Nomic doesn't have any second-class persons...
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > > I'm pretty sure you can't get Agoran Consent in B, but in case this is > a valid synonym for B's equivalent, I object there too. By the way, B > doesn't currently allow non-first-class judges; the Agora amendment > happened after the ruleset was stolen. > True, but I wanted to make it really easy if B decided to borrow that one. ...although, if it were to sit in Agora as a result of joining B, that would be interesting.
DIS: Re: BUS: An action
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Paul VanKoughnett wrote: > > I agree to the mid central lax unrounded vowel contract. > I believe there are still two, although your having quoted one likely causes it to be unambiguously the one you joined.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Being sneaky
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Alex Smith wrote: > > Ah; to me, the Town Fountain is a power-4 reference for insisting that > 'Marvy' must be a noun. CFJing on "'Marvy' is a noun" would probably be > IRRELEVANT, though, so I won't gum the judicial system up with that CFJ. > But its text is clearly referencing the "ye mighty" in Shelley's "Ozymandias" and "mighty" is still an adjective.
Re: DIS: Nickname changes need not be public, assuming that hasn't changed
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 5:51 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > 2009/6/12 Warrigal : >> --Tom, who would like to go back to being called Warrigal >> > Why don't you? > Where's the fun in that?
Re: DIS: The Game
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 11:27 PM, Kyle Marek-Spartz wrote: > On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: >>> I lost The Game. >> >> I won The Game. Thanks for playing, everyone. >> > > You did not. Check out losethegame.com > Randall Monroe disagrees. Check out http://xkcd.com/391/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: No idea
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: >> The server isn't CPU-intensive (load average <= 0.05), but it does have >> to compete for bandwidth with the family's incoming videos and torrents, >> plus it hosts one 50 MB file that gets downloaded ~40 times per month. > > Heh. my home connection is reaching you at 2sec or less right now but office > was certainly 30+ this afternoon. -g. My home connection always times out. - teucer
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: No idea
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Elliott Hird wrote: >>> Not bad at all. Actually it's the INSANE proposals I remember the >>> most... definitely added to the game in a good way. -G. >>> >> Oerjan proposed those. > > I'm pretty sure it was several by Craig. -G. Unfortunately I can't find agora-business archives from before November of 2002, at which point I was not active anymore, but I'd love to go track those down. Man. I'm reminded of when I rejoined B a while back and went and looked at what had been going on six years ago there only to discover a precedent (presumably no longer valid, alas!) establishing that B players are all fucking nuts.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: No idea
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 8:14 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: > > http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/list.php?caller=Craig > The server is taking too long to respond.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: No idea
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 12:40 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Oh hey you're that Craig? I remember your CFJs fondly. -G. > Huh. I don't remember them at all. But yes, I'm the same Craig. ...how bad were they?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: We Should Have Done This Long Ago
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 12:12 AM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Kyle Marek-Spartz > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Craig Daniel wrote: >> > (11:16:39 PM) craigbdaniel: Does the word "Agora" mean anything not >> > directly related to either Greece or agoraphobia to you? >> >> Evidence. >> >> Kyle Marek-Spartz - KDØGTK > > > I don't see how what he did is anything different from what I did. I just > following a link in Wikipedia to agoranomic.org, thought the game seemed > interesting, and registered. You knew it was a game and that it sounded interesting.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: No idea
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 12:06 AM, Kyle Marek-Spartz wrote: > On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Aaron Goldfein > wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:53 PM, Craig Daniel wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Aaron Goldfein >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > You're not a player. >>> >>> I'm not? >>> >>> Shit, when did I get deregistered? >> >> You never registered, at least not recently. > > > 19 of April of this very fine year, Craig was deregistered due to abandonment. Ah, I missed that somehow. Probably because I've never been consistently reading all the lists.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: No idea
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:55 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:53 PM, Craig Daniel wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Aaron Goldfein >> wrote: >> > >> > You're not a player. >> >> I'm not? >> >> Shit, when did I get deregistered? > > You never registered, at least not recently. I believed I registered on January 3, and was immediately NOV'd for doing so under the name "Markos Sophisticus Maximus" which was at the time confusing. On the other hand, I did so to help Wooble with a (self-described) very unlikely scam, so I didn't follow the fate of the resulting CFJ on whether I was a player and whether I had violated a rule in picking that name, and I am currently listed as a former player on the Nomic Wiki page and therefore presume that I am not a current one. That being the case: I register.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: We Should Have Done This Long Ago
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Kyle Marek-Spartz wrote: You at least heard of Agora before you joined it. > > I pledge to transfer a prop from myself to the first person who, while not a > player and not barred from registering (either due to recent > deregistration or non-personship), attempts to register before ever > hearing of Agora. By the way, just to prove a prop is owed, the following exchange has just happened on AIM a little while ago. (11:15:04 PM) craigbdaniel: Can I talk you into doing something strange and unusual online for no good reason at all? (11:15:40 PM) (Luke, whose sn I have censored): perhaps? (11:15:47 PM) (Luke): what might I help you with, good sir? (11:16:07 PM) craigbdaniel: It requires promising not to google something before signing up on an e-mail list and posting one message to it. (11:16:20 PM) craigbdaniel: But first I have to confirm that the thing you can't google isn't something you've heard of. (11:16:23 PM) (Luke): OK (11:16:26 PM) (Luke): go ahead (11:16:39 PM) craigbdaniel: Does the word "Agora" mean anything not directly related to either Greece or agoraphobia to you? (11:16:56 PM) (Luke): there's a band called Aghora (11:17:02 PM) craigbdaniel: Excellent. (11:17:14 PM) craigbdaniel: Sign up on the mailing list whose information is here: http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/agora-business (11:17:33 PM) craigbdaniel: then post one message to it explaining that you have no clue what's going on but wish to join them anyway. (11:17:55 PM) (Luke): Okies (11:18:06 PM) craigbdaniel: once it's gone through I will explain everything.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: No idea
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > > You're not a player. I'm not? Shit, when did I get deregistered?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: No idea
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Kyle Marek-Spartz wrote: > > Can non-players get crim CFJs? What if players committed crimes prior > to eir registration? If "you" were a second-class person, would its > parties be liable? If it were, then Luke's message would have been ambiguous.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: No idea
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Kyle Marek-Spartz wrote: > On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Aaron Goldfein > wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Luke Lockhart >> wrote: >>> >>> I have no idea what is going on here but wish to join you. >> >> Welcome to Agora. Is there any nickname you would like to use? >> >> -Yally >> > > > I was assuming "You". If so, e's liable to get a crim CFJ over it per rule 2170.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: We Should Have Done This Long Ago
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 12:41 AM, Paul VanKoughnett wrote: > > Gratuitous: In a language I developed secretly, the noun denoting a player > of a game is formed from the name of that game by deleting its third letter > and putting it in all-caps. So an AGRA is a player of Agora, and a CFJ is a > player of Cfoj, a game involving ice-picks developed by scientists in > Antarctica to pass the time. I know one of those. I should ask him about the rules; perhaps we can come up with an online imitation for use as a subgame. - teucer
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: We Should Have Done This Long Ago
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Benjamin Caplan wrote: > > Gratuitous: > > This would have been more interesting after my proposal was passed. As > it is, the CFJs are almost certainly all FALSE. > Gratuitous: this isn't the point. The goal is not to find out if they worked, but to fulfill the conditions of the pledge. Consider it eir first scam. (Also: hooray for one more person in the einos-Agora overlap!)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: We Should Have Done This Long Ago
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > > Given the history of new player registrations, I wouldn't be surprised > if people nevertheless managed to mess this one up... > "I think I'd like to start playing."
Re: DIS: Einos
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > http://einos-nomic.blogspot.com/ > Einos has had a move activition, and now has a restriction on when > protective decrees take effect. It's pretty clear it's just to get > some kind of reaction, but the only thing coherent with our rules is > to disqualify it from being a protectorate, right? At present, there are no circumstances under which the relevant clause could be false - unless, of course, the sentence no longer required its truth, in which case it wouldn't matter if the bold part were false. So, the answer to your question isn't obviously yes. But I'm inclined to agree with your assessment anyhow, and would encourage somebody to submit a move that restores its eligibility in a way more interesting than merely reverting the last move. - teucer, einos scribe aka Craig, Agoran lurker
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Grabbing a dictatorship loophole, I'll explain later
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 2:21 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: > ehird wrote: > >> 2009/3/28 Alex Smith : >>> I cause rule 2214 to amend itself by replacing its text with "Indy CAN >>> cause this rule to amend itself by announcement.", using the authority >>> from Open It Up. >>> >>> -- >>> ais523 >> >> Context: >> >> This actually works because of B Nomic's gamestate. No -- really. >> >> The late fourth era, it turns out, never existed. So, the proposal to >> move the Monster never passed. Me and ais523 realised this on IRC. >> >> And rule 2214 -- the bootstrap rule -- mentioned the possibility of >> repealing it by announcement once the proposal passed in B. > > It also mentioned the possibility of repealing it by announcement once > the proposal failed in B. Yes, but it didn't - because the proposal never *existed* in B.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Brian's DiploNomic Report
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:45 PM, Warrigal wrote: > On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:40 PM, comex wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 10:51 PM, Charles Reiss wrote: > Any Player can send a public message to Agora with support and without > 2 objections in 4 to 14 days.} >>> That would require Agoran consent unless DiploNomic is more biological >>> than I have been lead to believe. >> >> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to unconditionally surrender to DiploNomic. > > I consent. I believe that makes *two* nomics that get to commemorate an epic Agoran surrender, where "Agoran surrender" means "an Agoran surrendered."
DIS: A new potential protectorate for you!
Agorans, I recently started (and mentioned on the IRC channel) a sort of revived The Curvature of the Earth is Overwhelmed by Local Noise Nomic, entitled The Earth is Nonetheless an Oblate Spheroid Nomic; it may be found at http://einos-nomic.blogspot.com/ The Earth is Nonetheless an Oblate Spheroid Nomic has just submitted to Agora as its benevolent protector. - teucer
