DIS: Agora XX: proposals 324-325
Here I number and repeat two new proposals: 324 (Chuck): I propose that rule 110 be transmuted to mutable. 325 (Chuck): I propose the following rule be created: If at any time four or more Voters have identical non-zero scores, the Speaker wins the game. Voting closes in 24 hours. -Dan
Re: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ
On 22/06/2013 9:09 AM, Chuck Carroll wrote: I invoke Judgement on the following statement: The “proposals” numbered 312, 313, 318, 319, and 320 are not proposed rule changes, and will have no effect if adopted, regardless of the adoption of other currently existing proposals. Reasoning: they propose to amend (currently) immutable rules. This is not one of the types of rule changes listed in rule 105. It is true that there are proposals to transmute those rules which precede the respective amendment of the rule, but at the moment the “proposals” were made the rules they claim to amend were immutable. Chuck By rule 214 I must select myself Judge, and by rule 215 I have 24 hours. -Dan
DIS: Agora XX: my turn to CFJ (Judge: FSX)
I call for judgement on the validity of proposal 322. See rule 105. 322 contains a conditional: 322 (Walker): - If the Rule initially numbered 106 is mutable, amend Rule 210 to read ... This isn't like the rule formerly numbered 211 which isn't a condition but a way to refer to a rule. By rule 214 I must randomly pick one of the 11 Voters... and my 11-sided die comes up FSX. You have 24 hours. -Dan
Re: DIS: Agora XX: Proposal
On 22/06/2013 10:01 AM, Chuck Carroll wrote: I propose the following rule be created: If at any time four or more Voters have identical non-zero scores, the Speaker wins the game. Chuck This has an interesting interaction with 306... you (among others) could make me win by announcement. (Assuming 112 is transmuted and amended)
Re: DIS: It's impermissible
Voting on 306 and 307 has closed. 308 and 309 still open for 12 hours. Here I just number and repeat the new proposal. Voting on it closes in 24 hours. Full report shortly. -Dan 310 (Walker): I propose that Rule 114 be made mutable.
DIS: Agora XX: 5th report
Good day Agorans, Since last report, proposals 305 and 306 were adopted, and 307 failed. This adds two new mutable rules. 305 forbids bribery, and 306 allows points to be transfered by announcement. The current ruleset is included at the end of this message. The passage of 305 (Chuck) was 2:1 with Chuck and Yally FOR, Walker AGAINST. (omd PRESENT, but this does nothing, not even for quorum.) By rule 302, Chuck gets 10 points and Walker 2. The passage of 306 (omd) was 2:0 with omd and Walker FOR. By rule 302, omd gets 10 points. Proposal 307 (omd) failed 1:1 with omd FOR and Walker AGAINST. Michael Norrish registered. The peer pressure was too much for scshunt, who also registered. Quorum is still 2 by rule 201. The eight Voters and their scores are: The Voters and their scores are: omd, 54 points FSX, 0 points Walker, 42 points Chuck, 48 points ehird, 30 points Yally, 0 points. Michael, 0 points. scshunt, 0 points. Then there's me, I am Speaker, I have no points. There are 3 new proposals, quoted in separate messages. Voting on 308 and 309 is still open for about 12 hours, and 310 for about 24 hours. Cast your ballots! Cheers, Daniel Mehkeri -- Rule 101 (Immutable) All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect. The rules in the Initial Set are in effect at the beginning of the first game. The Initial Set consists of rules 101-116 (immutable) and 201-219 (mutable). History: Initial Immutable Rule 101, Jun. 30 1993 -- Rule 102 (Immutable) Initially rules in the 100's are immutable and rules in the 200's are mutable. Rules subsequently enacted or transmuted (that is, changed from immutable to mutable or vice versa) may be immutable or mutable regardless of their numbers, and rules in the Initial Set may be transmuted regardless of their numbers. History: Initial Immutable Rule 102, Jun. 30 1993 -- Rule 103 (Immutable) At any time, each player shall be either a Voter or the Speaker; no player may simultaneously be a Voter and a Speaker. At any time there shall be exactly one Speaker. The term player in the rules shall specifically include both the Voters and the Speaker. History: Initial Immutable Rule 103, Jun. 30 1993 -- Rule 104 (Immutable) The Speaker for the Vigintennial game shall be Daniel Méhkeri. History: Initial Immutable Rule 104, Jun. 30 1993 Amended for Vigintennial by decree, Jun. 17 2013 -- Rule 105 (Immutable) A rule change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; or (2) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa. (Note: This definition implies that, at least initially, all new rules are mutable; immutable rules, as long as they are immutable, may not be amended or repealed; mutable rules, as long as they are mutable, may be amended or repealed; any rule of any status may be transmuted; no rule is absolutely immune to change.) History: Initial Immutable Rule 105, Jun. 30 1993 -- Rule 106 (Immutable) All rule changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on. They will be adopted if and only if they receive the required number of votes and quorum is achieved. History: Initial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993 -- Rule 107 (Immutable) Any proposed rule change must be posted to the mailing list designated by the Speaker for this purpose. If adopted, it must guide play in the form in which it was voted on. History: Initial Immutable Rule 107, Jun. 30 1993 Amended for Vigintennial by decree, Jun. 17 2013 -- Rule 108 (Immutable) No rule change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it, even if its wording explicitly states otherwise. No rule change may have retroactive application. History: Initial Immutable Rule 108, Jun. 30 1993 -- Rule 109 (Immutable) The Speaker shall give each proposed rule change a number for reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each rule change proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not the proposal is adopted. If a rule is repealed and reenacted, it receives the number of the proposal to reenact it. If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it. History: Initial Immutable Rule 109, Jun. 30 1993
Re: DIS: XX registration
On 21/06/2013 1:32 AM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Michael Norrish michael.norr...@nicta.com.au wrote: I register for the Agora XX game. Michael Now I feel like there was no reason to modify Rule 104. I know eh! Should we be taking bets on Peter Suber showing up??
Re: DIS: It's impermissible
On 21/06/2013 9:38 AM, omd wrote: On Friday, June 21, 2013, Fool wrote: Here I just number and repeat the new proposal. May I request that you always start a new thread for such numberings so that it's harder for proposals to get lost in the confusion? Thanks. I will. Sorry about that folks. -Dan
DIS: Agora XX: 308 fails, 309 passes
Voting on these two are closed. 308 fails 3:2 (Chuck, omd, and scshunt FOR; Walker and Michael AGAINST. It was a transmutation.) 309 passes 3:1 (Chuck, omd, and Michael FOR; scshunt AGAINST.) This amends rule 206: I propose that Rule 206 be amended to read: Initially, each Voter has exactly one vote on each proposal. During the voting period on a proposal, a player with more than 50 points may cast an additional vote on that proposal by making a statement to that effect on the mailing list; this destroys 50 of the player's points. The Speaker may not vote. Rule 302 gives Walker 10 points and scshunt 2 points. 310 open for about 10 hours. 4 new proposals will be distributed shortly. -Dan
DIS: Agora XX: 2 CFJs
scshunt invokes judgement on two statements: I invoke judgement on whether Rule 304 had the power to repeal itself without that rule change being voted on. I think that all rule changes must be voted on and cannot occur automatically. and I invoke judgement on whether or not Goethe's transfers succeeded. By rule 214, I must select myself as Judge for both. Gratuitous (omd): IMHO, only a moron in a hurry would interpret the wording as having either bug. I am, in fact, kind of in a hurry. So I will not deliver a legal judgement on either now. By rule 215, I have 24 hours. -Dan
DIS: Agora XX: Proposals 306-307
I'll send a report out shortly. Here I'm numbering and repeating the two new proposals. As always you can vote by just replying to this message, privately if you like. Voting on these closes in 24h. -Dan 306 (omd): 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. 307 (omd): I further propose that Rule 112 be made mutable.
DIS: Agora XX: 4th report
Good day Agorans, Since last report, proposals 301, 302, and 304 were adopted, while 303 failed. The overall change to the ruleset is just that 211 is amended, now 302. The current ruleset is included at the end of this message. There are three new proposals. Voting on 305 closes in about 14 hours, and voting on 306 and 307 in about 24 hours. After 307 was proposed, Yally registered. This makes six Voters, so, by 201, quorum is 2 going forward. The Voters and their scores are: omd, 44 points FSX, 0 points Walker, 40 points Chuck, 38 points ehird, 30 points Yally, 0 points. Then there's me, I am Speaker, I have no points. Upon closure of the vote for proposals 301-304, the following happened: * Proposal 301, by Chuck, passes 3:1. Chuck, Walker, and ehird voted FOR; omd voted AGAINST. * 301 amends 211. * By 301, Chuck gets a random number of points between 1 and 10 for a successful proposal. By 218, I'm the one who's supposed to run the random number generator, so I did. It came up 6. * By 301, omd gets 2 points for opposing a successful proposal. * Proposal 302, by Walker, passes 3:2. FSX, Walker, and ehird voted FOR; omd and Chuck voted AGAINST. * 302 amends 301. * By 302, Walker gets 10 points for a successful proposal. * By 302, omd and Chuck each get 2 points for opposing a successful proposal. * Proposal 303, by Chuck, fails 4:1. FSX, Walker, Chuck, and ehird voted FOR; omd voted AGAINST. By rule 110, this required unanimous consent. * Proposal 304, by omd, passes 4:0. omd, Walker, Chuck, and ehird voted FOR. * By 302, omd gets 10 points for a successful proposal. * By 304, omd, Walker, Chuck, and ehird each get 30 points for supporting 304. * 304 repeals itself. Cheers, Daniel Mehkeri -- Rule 101 (Immutable) All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect. The rules in the Initial Set are in effect at the beginning of the first game. The Initial Set consists of rules 101-116 (immutable) and 201-219 (mutable). History: Initial Immutable Rule 101, Jun. 30 1993 -- Rule 102 (Immutable) Initially rules in the 100's are immutable and rules in the 200's are mutable. Rules subsequently enacted or transmuted (that is, changed from immutable to mutable or vice versa) may be immutable or mutable regardless of their numbers, and rules in the Initial Set may be transmuted regardless of their numbers. History: Initial Immutable Rule 102, Jun. 30 1993 -- Rule 103 (Immutable) At any time, each player shall be either a Voter or the Speaker; no player may simultaneously be a Voter and a Speaker. At any time there shall be exactly one Speaker. The term player in the rules shall specifically include both the Voters and the Speaker. History: Initial Immutable Rule 103, Jun. 30 1993 -- Rule 104 (Immutable) The Speaker for the Vigintennial game shall be Daniel Méhkeri. History: Initial Immutable Rule 104, Jun. 30 1993 Amended for Vigintennial by decree, Jun. 17 2013 -- Rule 105 (Immutable) A rule change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; or (2) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa. (Note: This definition implies that, at least initially, all new rules are mutable; immutable rules, as long as they are immutable, may not be amended or repealed; mutable rules, as long as they are mutable, may be amended or repealed; any rule of any status may be transmuted; no rule is absolutely immune to change.) History: Initial Immutable Rule 105, Jun. 30 1993 -- Rule 106 (Immutable) All rule changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on. They will be adopted if and only if they receive the required number of votes and quorum is achieved. History: Initial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993 -- Rule 107 (Immutable) Any proposed rule change must be posted to the mailing list designated by the Speaker for this purpose. If adopted, it must guide play in the form in which it was voted on. History: Initial Immutable Rule 107, Jun. 30 1993 Amended for Vigintennial by decree, Jun. 17 2013 -- Rule 108 (Immutable) No rule change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it, even if its wording explicitly states otherwise. No rule change may have retroactive application. History: Initial Immutable Rule 108, Jun. 30 1993
DIS: Agora XX: proposals 308 and 309
Voting on 305 closes in about an hour. 306 and 307 close in about 11 hours. Here I'm just numbering and repeating the two new proposals. As always you can vote by just replying to this message, privately if you like. Voting on these closes in 24h. -Dan 308 (Chuck): I propose that Rule 110 be transmuted to mutable. 309 (Walker): I propose that Rule 206 be amended to read: Initially, each Voter has exactly one vote on each proposal. During the voting period on a proposal, a player with more than 50 points may cast an additional vote on that proposal by making a statement to that effect on the mailing list; this destroys 50 of the player's points. The Speaker may not vote.
DIS: Agora XX: Proposal 305 passes
Voting is closed on this. It passes 2:1 (Chuck,Yally vs Walker). This enacts rule 305. Chuck +10 and Walker +2 by rule 302. Full report in about 10 hours. Voting on 306-309 is still open. Vote early, vote often! -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.
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: 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.
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: Fwd: Agora XX: 1st report: Vigintennial Blitz game begins
For the benefit of anyone subscribed only to agora-discussion, I am reposting the 1st report here. I did originally designate agora-business for this game, but I do now designate agora-discussion. -Dan Original Message Subject: Agora XX: 1st report: Vigintennial Blitz game begins Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 20:19:36 -0400 From: Fool fool1...@gmail.com To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org Greetings Agorans, I have appointed myself to the Speakership of Agora's Vigintennial Blitz game (AKA Agora XX). I commit to you all that I shall make myself availble for the duties of Speaker at around 11:00 UTC every day, from the 18th to the 29th. This is the first report, containing the Initial Set of rules. It is Agora's Initial Set almost verbatim. Periods are accelerated to 24 hours. The game starts right away and ends on the Vigintennial. To further expedite things, all actions other than votes are posted directly to the mailing list, rather than distributed by the Speaker, since only voting was explicitly secret in the Initial Set (rule 207). Votes are to be emailed privately to the Speaker. I resisted the temptation to make any other changes. The other thing this report contains (rule 218) is the list of players and their scores: I am the only player, I am the Speaker, I have no points. The Initial Set does not specify how players join. Rule 116 implies this is unregulated. I hold that anyone can join by announcement. I designate the agora-business mailing list for playing this game (rule 107). If this causes annoyance to the non-players we can move. I see no reason to let this get bogged down... we may as well begin directly Proposals for new rules are invited. -- First Speaker Michael Norrish, June 30, 1993, 00:04:30 GMT +1200, as quoted in Agora's rule 1727. May the best Nomician win, Daniel Méhkeri. The Initial Set for this game follows. The list of deviations from Agora's Initial Set are: - Rule 104: In the absence of Michael Norrish, I am the Speaker - Rule 107: proposals posted directly to the mailing list - Rule 112: the game ends at the exact moment of Agora's Vigintennial - Rule 203 omitted: see rule 112. - Rule 204: proposals posted directly to the mailing list, Speaker has 24 hours to assign it a number - Rule 205: voting period is 24 hours from its number assignment, however players can also vote before number assignment. - Rule 213: CFJs posted directly to the mailing list, Speaker has 24 hours to select a Judge - Rule 215: Judge has 24 hours to deliver a verdict, verdict posted directly to the mailing list - Rule 216: reasoning, if any, posted directly to the mailing list. -- Rule 101 (Immutable) All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect. The rules in the Initial Set are in effect at the beginning of the first game. The Initial Set consists of rules 101-116 (immutable) and 201-219 (mutable). History: Initial Immutable Rule 101, Jun. 30 1993 -- Rule 102 (Immutable) Initially rules in the 100's are immutable and rules in the 200's are mutable. Rules subsequently enacted or transmuted (that is, changed from immutable to mutable or vice versa) may be immutable or mutable regardless of their numbers, and rules in the Initial Set may be transmuted regardless of their numbers. History: Initial Immutable Rule 102, Jun. 30 1993 -- Rule 103 (Immutable) At any time, each player shall be either a Voter or the Speaker; no player may simultaneously be a Voter and a Speaker. At any time there shall be exactly one Speaker. The term player in the rules shall specifically include both the Voters and the Speaker. History: Initial Immutable Rule 103, Jun. 30 1993 -- Rule 104 (Immutable) The Speaker for the Vigintennial game shall be Daniel Méhkeri. History: Initial Immutable Rule 104, Jun. 30 1993 Amended for Vigintennial by decree, Jun. 17 2013 -- Rule 105 (Immutable) A rule change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; or (2) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa. (Note: This definition implies that, at least initially, all new rules are mutable; immutable rules, as long as they are immutable, may not be amended or repealed; mutable rules, as long as they are mutable, may be amended or repealed; any rule of any status may be transmuted; no rule is absolutely immune to change.) History: Initial Immutable Rule 105, Jun. 30 1993
DIS: Agora XX: 2nd report
Good day Agorans, This time of day (around 11:00 UTC) will be my usual reporting time. There's not much to report today. There have been no proposals. The ruleset is unchanged, I will not repeat it. There are three new Voters: omd, Flameshadowxeroshin, and Walker joined, in that order, bringing the Voter count to, well, three. Plus there's me, and I am Speaker. We all have zero points. There was one CFJ, which will be replied to separately. Impressively, at the time it was raised, there was only one Voter, and yet there still managed to be disagreement. Regards, -Dan Mehkeri
DIS: Re: BUS: Agora XX: 1st report: Vigintennial Blitz game begins
On 17/06/2013 9:06 PM, omd wrote: Vigintennial Blitz CFJ: If a proposal purports to reward or penalize voters based on the votes they cast on that proposal, or based on any other action taken / not taken by any player prior to the end of the voting period on that proposal, then that proposal will, if passed, be in conflict with rule 108. Arguments: Why would it? I announce that, by rule 214, I am the Judge. I deliver my judgement: FALSE (ie. that would NOT conflict with 108). Now agora.qoid.us doesn't work for me, but this does: http://web.archive.org/web/20130115221259/http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/stare.txt 108: Michael, 001: This does not forbid Rules to be explicitly dependent on circumstances before they are enacted, for example the vote on the Proposal that created the Rule. I concur with Michael. Merely depending on history, without attempting to re-write it, does not violate 108. Now 001 seems to indicate the very first CFJ from 20 years ago was about this, and I take it that omd was aware of this when he raised this current CFJ. Nice! -Dan
Re: DIS: Count me in
On 18/06/2013 4:46 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: From only having Watched with half an ear, and Listened with one eye, how does Agora XX work and which list would I have to be on to play it? I've gathered it's a speed Agora, right? Yup, speed Agora, this list, and I reposted the 1st report so hopefully that's all clear now. I miss half the conversation of pretty much everything. - ... - Okay, will do. - ... - No, we have no mustard. - ... - Well, I don't know about THAT. I mean, where are we going to find a pair of pants that big?
Re: DIS: Agora XX: Registration
On 18/06/2013 7:58 AM, Chuck Carroll wrote: I join Agora XX. Chuck Well, hog tie me to a TTY and set my wizard bit, look who's here! -Dan
DIS: Agora XX proposals 301-304
Hello all, A report in about 11h. Here I'll only number and repeat the proposals made so far, so that you can vote by just replying to this message. You can vote privately, as omd reminds you. Voting on these four closes in 24h. -Dan 301 (Chuck): I propose that Rule 211 be amended to read: “Voters who voted against proposals which are adopted receive 2 points apiece. Players whose proposals are adopted shall receive a random number of points in the range 1-10 inclusive.” 302 (Walker): I propose that the Rule initially numbered 211 be amended by replacing a random number of points in the range 1-10 inclusive with 10 points. 303 (Chuck): I propose that Rule 110 be transmuted to mutable. 304 (omd): I propose that a rule be enacted to read: Upon the enactment of this rule, each player who voted for it shall receive 30 points, and each player who voted against shall lose the 10 points they gained for voting against; then this rule is immediately repealed.
DIS: RETRY Agora XX proposals 301-304
Retrying with a reply-to header so that you'll reply to me by default. Original Message Subject: Agora XX proposals 301-304 Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:28:19 -0400 From: Fool fool1...@gmail.com To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org Hello all, A report in about 11h. Here I'll only number and repeat the proposals made so far, so that you can vote by just replying to this message. You can vote privately, as omd reminds you. Voting on these four closes in 24h. -Dan 301 (Chuck): I propose that Rule 211 be amended to read: “Voters who voted against proposals which are adopted receive 2 points apiece. Players whose proposals are adopted shall receive a random number of points in the range 1-10 inclusive.” 302 (Walker): I propose that the Rule initially numbered 211 be amended by replacing a random number of points in the range 1-10 inclusive with 10 points. 303 (Chuck): I propose that Rule 110 be transmuted to mutable. 304 (omd): I propose that a rule be enacted to read: Upon the enactment of this rule, each player who voted for it shall receive 30 points, and each player who voted against shall lose the 10 points they gained for voting against; then this rule is immediately repealed.
DIS: Proposal 7476
Proposal 7476 (AI=2, PF=Y0, Ordinary, Disinterested) by scshunt Staledated Amend Rule 879 to read Quorum on an Agoran Decision is the greater of one-third the number of active players and 5. The rule used to be eligible voters with a positive voting limit on that decision rather than active players, might that not matter? Also, what if there are fewer than 5 eligible voters? The rule used to have a clause about that.
ALL ABOARD Re: DIS: On Agora's Vigintennial
1. An accelerated game of Nomic, starting from Agora's initial ruleset (possibly slightly modified if necessary), but made so that timelimits are extremely short. The game would have an immutable rule ending it within a week if it hadn't already, the winner being the player with the most points. Hopefully we would start this game one week before the vigintennial, with the winner being crowned on July 30th. Well, my own experience with PBM suggests that anything faster than 24 hour cycles will really make continuous participation difficult for most people. Unless, that is, you go all the way to a live game, held in a single sitting (several hours from beginning to end, on IRC or something). Now, I myself, having been recently handed a mildly humiliating defeat in another PBM game, and having had yet another one put on hold for a bit, find that I can commit a regular timeslot every day until the end of the month, as would behoove, say, the Speaker of a 24h game. So, given that time is ticking and that nobody is jumping on this, I'm going to proceed in the spirit of the quote in R1727: I'm starting a 24h game on agora-business imminently. Once the game is over, if it pleases Agora, the Herald can award the winner a Patent Title or whatever is felt appropriate. Or, if there was not sufficient interest, or the game was in some other way unworthy of Agora's recognition, then it can simply be ignored (and if our presence on agora-business annoys the non-players, we can move). All aboard! -Dan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Agora XX: 1st report: Vigintennial Blitz game begins
On 17/06/2013 8:21 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Foolfool1...@gmail.com wrote: I designate the agora-business mailing list for playing this game (rule 107). If this causes annoyance to the non-players we can move. Please. Anywhere but a public forum. -scshunt Meaning you'd actually prefer it on agora-discussion? It seems to me the discussion forum is busier, but I defer to you guys. Or if you meant not on agoranomic.org at all, I'll GTFO :) -Dan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Agora XX: 1st report: Vigintennial Blitz game begins
On 17/06/2013 8:29 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Foolfool1...@gmail.com wrote: Meaning you'd actually prefer it on agora-discussion? It seems to me the discussion forum is busier, but I defer to you guys. Or if you meant not on agoranomic.org at all, I'll GTFO :) -Dan I'd rather a DF than a PF because if you choose a PF, that means that for a few weeks every action will need to be prefixed with which nomic it's referring to. Ah. But a non-Agora forum would be better (or perhaps change a backup list to a DF). Sean Well, as I understand the registrar can flip a list to DF without objection which as I understand requires several days. The game would be half way done by then, no? How about agora-discussion immediately, move off if there are more objectors. -Dan
DIS: Re: BUS: May as well try to settle this, I think
Kerim Aydin, Thu, 13 Jun 2013 21:58:26 -0700 : For that matter, is the card paradox still compelling? I had a look at the current ruleset and I'd guess that nowadays the card paradox would be resolved by R1030 (In a conflict between rules...) or R2240 (In a conflict between clauses of the same rule...) [...] In terms of compelling, I think that just depends on the mood of the current body of players. Well, really I meant, would it still force action from a body of players, even if they were inclined NOT to care about these things. Like it did 8 years ago. paradoxes and allowing platonic states of indeterminate or infinite loops (time-travelly paradoxy sci-fi smeg --Red Dwarf) And now my head hurts, serves me right. -Dan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: May as well try to settle this, I think
Kerim Aydin, Wed, 12 Jun 2013 07:37:53 -0700 : Some history: From 2002 (when I started) to 2005 no one thought about paradoxes at all in this sense. Paradoxical CFJ statements were simply DISMISSED as meaningless. I think the aforementioned lawyer had a hand in creating this system (before my time). R2358 didn't exist. In 2005, we were playing cards. As a defense card, one card had retroactive application (it could cancel any recent play). It was used to cancel out the play that led to it being obtained to play. It was done because it could be, and hadn't been done, and because the original Nomic rules said that creating a paradox ended the game. We didn't know what to do: until a proposal papered over the problem, I (the recordkeepor for cards) tracked to separates states of the game (where the card had been played and where it hadn't). Someone suggested we just had to start Agora II. Players thought it was cool enough (in that particular instance, where it was a really clear retroactive application) to add it as a win condition. That led to lots lots more purely verbal attempts to win this way (e.g. CFJing on this statement is false etc.) and the rule was constantly tweaked. [...] The current case isn't really the same sort of win attempt, IMO. I think it's just re-discovering (or re-interpreting according to current Agoran rules and play) the original legal conundrum that led Suber to invent Nomic. Probably worth doing that once in an Agoran generation or so! That's pretty neat to get a historical perspective like that, thanks, G., for posting this. If R2358 were repealed it would probably cut back on such things drastically Well, yeah, based on what you're saying, it seems it took years for a paradox to come up that actually bothered anyone. For that matter, is the card paradox still compelling? I had a look at the current ruleset and I'd guess that nowadays the card paradox would be resolved by R1030 (In a conflict between rules...) or R2240 (In a conflict between clauses of the same rule...) but not eliminate the possibility of logical paradoxes cropping up (impossible to do that in a self-referential algorithmic system). Impossible to do that? I dunno. Of course, the entire ruleset can be replaced. If no rule is permanent, then you can't eliminate any possibility. And if any rule did become permanent, then you could say it's not Nomic anymore. But aside from that, I'd bet that you could eliminate paradoxes. -Dan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: May as well try to settle this, I think
omd, Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:35:23 -0700 : Precedence between rules (though not clauses) was largely the same in 2005 as it is now; the wording of the card paradox is that card shall be deemed to have not been played, which is not really a rule conflict, though it could arguably be interpreted as one. I guess you mean that card shall be deemed to have not been played or other retroactive cancellation need not be considered a conflict with the rule enabling the action being cancelled? What I really meant was something more along the lines that if two rules or clauses jointly are inconsistent (while each without the other is consistent) then they are in conflict. One would just overrule the other. And if they are not jointly inconsistent, what's the problem exactly? I guess this is wrong? I checked the ruleset to see if conflict had a definition, it isn't there. -Dan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: May as well try to settle this, I think
Is this (and a bunch of other CFJs on the topic of paradoxes) all about rule 2358? Why not just change that? Although Rule 2358 mostly depends on the traditional interpretation of paradoxes as causing fundamental logical indeterminacy, and might have to be changed if this CFJ finds otherwise, paradoxes don't depend on Rule 2358. In the spirit of absurd literalism I point out that my question asked about certain CFJs and not directly about paradoxes :) Paradoxes don't arise spontaneously, nor do they CFJ themselves. Conversely, the most recent CFJ doesn't refer to any alleged paradox in the ruleset or associated gamestate. These all involve player actions, and presumably players have reasons. -Dan
DIS: Re: BUS: May as well try to settle this, I think
Lawyers and logicians also have different concepts of solving a problem. Just wondering, is anyone here a lawyer? I mean, by profession, not in any allegorical sense. (anyone except Ienpw III, who didn't see me.) -Dan Mehkeri
DIS: Re: BUS: May as well try to settle this, I think
Is this (and a bunch of other CFJs on the topic of paradoxes) all about rule 2358? Why not just change that? -Dan
DIS: Re: Star Chamber
E can also send scrambled codebooks to one or more participants. This would be detected by the victims after the fact, but they could not prove it. This was indeed a serious problem with the original version, which I should have realized immediately, but the version up for vote has fixed it, as the initiator now publishes a hash for each voter which e can opt to verify immediately. Oh, I see, yes you're right. In fact I hadn't even noticed it was already up for vote. -Dan
DIS: Re: Star Chamber
Ah, trying to use crypto to do simultaneous moves. Simultaneous votes on some things can be way more interesting, for instance in prisoner's dilemma type situations. Otherwise the advantage goes to whoever's checking the mailing list closest to the deadline. Now, am I mistaken that the initiator is also a participant? If so it seems you've effectively made em a biased manager. Nothing prevents em and eir allies from watching the turn while it's in progress, and it would not be detected. E can also send scrambled codebooks to one or more participants. This would be detected by the victims after the fact, but they could not prove it. A non-crypto alternative is to use a delayed mail service like timecave.com. But best, I think, is just to use a neutral manager. Regards, -Daniel
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Ambassador-at-Large] News from Foreign Nations
On 15 May 2013 15:14, Jonathan Rouillardjonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote: However, marking it as abandoned doesn't feel right - the players didn't abandon the game, it just ended properly. So, ended properly was a possibility not hitherto contemplated by Agora? Another possibility probably not contemplated by that rule is constitutional isolation. I don't know if neutral really fits. for example, the new game of Diplonomic I am forming at http://sites.google.com/site/diplocat24/diplonomic/game1 It has most of the same players from Omnomnomic, but there is no ruleset continuity. And yes, all that was really just an excuse for me to post the link to the game. We still have space for a player or two. I figure a couple of you might be bored with this happy community nomic stuff and might want to try something where players lie, backstab, and pass rules without regard for fair play. See the link for details, email me if interested. -Daniel Mehkeri
DIS: Don't mind me.
I'm not a player. I'm just spying on you hatless evildoers.
