Re: DIS: Proto-contract: The Agoran Fast Food Society
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 12:50 AM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Saturday 18 October 2008 12:13:21 pm ihope wrote: >> The Quota is a positive integer, initially 30. If more than 30 >> Potatoes have been Fried in the last 30 days, then the Muckle CAN >> increment the Quota by 1, and SHALL do so as soon as possible. > There should be a way to decrease the Quota too, just in case. Decrease the Quota if less than 14 have been Fried in the last 30 days, I suppose. Also, prevent the Muckle from changing it if it's been changed in the last 30 days, of course. >> * That date's Dow opening (if there is none, that date has no >> Potatoes). > It's not obvious, to me at least, how to find this out. Can we make it > something internal to Agora, but still uncontrollable? Maybe the > mod-2^16 sum of the hashes of the last message sent by each party on > the preceding day. It'd be easier, I think, to simply tell people where they can find this information. "To find this, go to http://finance.google.com/finance?cid=983582. To the right of the big number, there should be an 'Open:' number, and below the big number, there should be the date it corresponds to." Also, where I said SHA-1 hash, I meant SHA-512 hash. It's perhaps more secure, as a theoretical vulnerability has been found in SHA-1. Perhaps "the current Quota" should instead be "the Quota at the beginning of that date", so that Quota changes don't invalidate all existing Potatoes. (Did I mention that I was expecting you guys to pick random positive integers rather than using random bits elsewhere? Oh well. And Pavitra, do you have an existing program that's capable of finding Potatoes?) --Warrigal of Escher
Re: DIS: Proto-contract: The Agoran Fast Food Society
Version 2:
{This is a public contract known as The Agoran Fast Food Society.
Parties to this contract are known as Artisans. The Muckle is a
person, originally Warrigal. If the Muckle is not an active player, or
has been the Muckle for the last 30 days, any Artisan can cause any
Artisan to become the Muckle. Any person CAN leave this contract by
announcement.
Golden Hash Browns are a currency that cannot be created except as
allowed by this contract. Any Artisan CAN by announcement Fry a Potato
that has never been Fried before; if this is done, the Muckle CAN
award one Golden Hash Brown to the Artisan, and SHALL do so as soon as
possible. An Artisan SHALL NOT claim to Fry something unless e is sure
it's a Potato.
The Quota is a positive integer, initially 30. If, in the last 30
days, more than 30 Potatoes have been Fried and the Quota has not been
incremented, then the Muckle CAN increment the Quota by 1, and SHALL
do so as soon as possible. If, in the last 30 days, less than 14
Potatoes have been fried and the Quota has not been decremented, then
the Muckle CAN decrement the Quota by 1, and SHALL do so as soon as
possible.
A Potato is any string whose SHA-523 hash in binary begins with at
least a Quota of 0s, and clearly indicates the following, and which is
which:
* Today's date, or any date no more than six days earlier.
* That date's Dow opening (if there is none, that date has no Potatoes).
* The Quota at the beginning of that date.
* The word "Muckle".
The most recent Dow opening can be found at
http://finance.google.com/finance?cid=983582, to the right of the big
number. The date of that Dow opening is below the big number.}
--Warrigal of Escher
Re: DIS: Proto-contract: The Agoran Fast Food Society
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 1:12 PM, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Version 2:
>
> {This is a public contract known as The Agoran Fast Food Society.
Oh, and let's not forget contestification. If this becomes a contest,
we'll be able to have:
"Any Artisan CAN by announcement destroy N Golden Hash Browns to gain
(number of registered first-class Artisans)*N*5/7 points, rounded
down."
--Warrigal of Escher
Re: DIS: PBA question
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 6:52 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The number in circulation should be equal to the number required to > withdraw everything. If there are extra coins in circulation, the > excess are worthless. If there are insufficient coins in circulation, > then the coinholders have lost value. I disagree. There are multiple ways for a bank's assets to exceed its liabilities; the liabilities going down in value is only one of them. Assets going up in value and trades that increase assets more than liabilities are other ways. Liabilities could also exit circulation temporarily. If there are "too many" coins in circulation, the liabilities must be either devalued or removed from circulation temporarily; if there are "too few", you can celebrate. --Warrigal of Escher
DIS: Re: BUS: [chaokeepor] Chao Holdings Reports
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 20 Oct 2008, at 13:58, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> The following is a list of the assets tracked by the Outer Head of the >> Agoran Illuminati and holdings of each. >> >> The Sacred Chao: owned by Wooble >> >> chaos: >> 0x44: 4 >> ais523: 10 >> Olipro: 6 >> Sir Toby: 7 >> Taral: 23 >> Wooble: 50 > > I request fnordization. I also request fnordization. --Warrigal of Escher
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5794-5802
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 3:04 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 13:26, The PerlNomic Partnership > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE >> 5794 O 1 1.0 Murphy Return of the Repeal-o-Matic >> 5795 O 1 1.0 Murphy Stop letting the Mad Scientist double-dip >> 5796 O 1 1.0 Ivan Hope CXXVIIGenocide I >> 5797 D 1 2.0 Taral Office with care >> 5798 D 1 3.0 Goethe Toughen Ratifiation >> 5799 D 1 2.0 comex Fix Rule 1789 >> 5800 O 0 1.0 ais523 Foreign Monsters >> 5801 O 1 1.5 Murphy Left in a Huff >> 5802 D 0 2.0 Murphy Referential point security > > I vote LLAMA(SELL(2VP - PRESENT)) on the above proposals. I believe this fails to post any sell tickets, as it's not a vote of SELL(anything). (Care to vote more than once on ordinary proposals, by the way?) --Warrigal of Escher
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: An obvious request to BobTHJ
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 21 October 2008 11:33:00 am Ian Kelly wrote: >> I especially don't want to start a >> political discussion within these hallowed fora, so this will be my >> only post on the subject. > > Agreed. Between the Illuminati, UNDEAD, and the People's Bank of > Agora, we clearly don't have time for partisanship. Escher is affronted at your failure to mention the Llama Party in matters of partisanship. --Warrigal of Escher
DIS: The Disappointing Result
This is the result: ('Bayes', ('Wooble', ((('Zefram', 'Taral',
(('Sir Toby', ('PerlNomic Partnership', 'cdm014')), 'root',
("Schrodinger's Cat", 'Murphy')), (('ais523', 'AFO'), ('BobTHJ',
('Ivan Hope', 'Quazie', ('Sgeo', 'avpx')), 'woggle'))), 'Goethe'),
'OscarMeyr'), 'Pavitra')), 'Dvorak Herring'), ('comex', 'ehird'
I am disappointed. Next time, I'm using Kruskal's algorithm.
(By the way, this totally means ais523 and the AFO should join the Llama Party.)
--Warrigal of Escher
Re: DIS: The Disappointing Result
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 14:18, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 14:11 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>> I'm lost
>>>
>>> BobTHJ
>>
>> http://paste.lisp.org/display/69019 should highlight the pairs of parens
>> if you hover your mouse over them. This may or may not help you find
>> your way. (Pasting it into a pastebin that does that was my first
>> reaction upon seeing the parenthesis soup...)
>
> I'm assuming this is organizing players based upon voting history?
> What method is being used to determine this? and how much history are
> we looking at? Did I miss other messages pertaining to this somewhere?
Have a script. I will not modify it unless it stops working.
import re
dists = {}
old_dists = {}
cache = {}
clades = []
def distance(c1,c2):
##print "Distance", c1, c2
if (c1,c2) in cache:
return cache[(c1,c2)]
elif c1 == c2:
cache[(c1,c2)] = 8
elif (c1,c2) in dists:
cache[(c1,c2)] = dists[(c1,c2)]
elif (c2,c1) in dists:
cache[(c1,c2)] = dists[(c2,c1)]
elif type(c1) == tuple:
cache[(c1,c2)] = distance_clade(c1,c2)
elif type(c2) == tuple:
cache[(c1,c2)] = distance_clade(c2,c1)
else:
cache[(c1,c2)] = 8
return cache[(c1,c2)]
def distance_clade(c1,c2):
print "Distance clade", c1, c2
c1x,c1y = c1
dx, dy = distance(c1x,c2), distance(c1y,c2)
if dx == 8:
if dy == 8:
return 8
else:
dx = dy
elif dy == 8:
dy = dx
dists[((c1x,c1y),c2)] = (dx + dy - distance(c1x,c1y))/2
dists[(c2,(c1x,c1y))] = dists[((c1x,c1y),c2)]
cache[((c1x,c1y),c2)] = dists[((c1x,c1y),c2)]
cache[(c2,(c1x,c1y))] = dists[((c1x,c1y),c2)]
return dists[((c1x,c1y),c2)]
def initialize():
for line in open('C:\\Documents and
Settings\\Peggy\\Desktop\\agora taxonomy raw.txt'):
match = re.compile(r'<(.*)>').match(line)
if match:
current_player = match.group(1)
clades.append(current_player)
match = re.compile(r'([^\t]*)\t([^\t]*)\t([^\t]*).*').match(line)
if match and match.group(1) != current_player:
if int(match.group(2)) + int(match.group(3)) == 0:
pass
else:
dists[(current_player,match.group(1))] =
float(match.group(3))/(float(match.group(2))+float(match.group(3)))
for player in clades:
dists[(player,player)] = 8
def add_clade(c1,c2):
print "Add clade", c1, c2
clades.append((c1,c2))
for clade in clades:
distance(clade,(c1,c2))
distance((c1,c2),clade)
dists[(c1,c2),(c1,c2)] = 8
for x in clades:
for y in clades:
if x in [c1,c2] or y in [c1,c2]:
if (x,y) in dists:
old_dists[(x,y)] = dists[(x,y)]
##print "Removing", (x,y)
del dists[(x,y)]
else:
old_dists[(x,y)] = 8
if c1 in clades:
clades.remove(c1)
if c2 in clades:
clades.remove(c2)
print "Exit add clade", c1, c2
def main_loop():
while True:
(x,y) = min(dists, key = lambda x: dists[x])
print "Main loop", (x,y)
if x in clades and y in clades and x != y:
add_clade(x,y)
else:
old_dists[(x,y)] = dists[(x,y)]
del dists[(x,y)]
I'm hoping that email won't butcher this.
--Warrigal of Escher
Re: BUS: Fwd: DIS: Proto-Judgement of CFJ 2211
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 6:27 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It is not against the best interests of the game to allow this crazy > forum to have been Public, because as far as I know the actions taken > in it while it was a Public Forum are well-known. So I judge CFJ 2211 > TRUE, and submit the following proposal: Appeal request, etc., etc. --Warrigal of Escher
Re: DIS: The Disappointing Result
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 7:19 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> warrigal wrote:
>
>> for line in open('C:\\Documents and
>> Settings\\Peggy\\Desktop\\agora taxonomy raw.txt'):
>
> And what's in that file, then?
Stuff of this format:
ais523 167 0 5544, 5562, 5595, 5603, 5604, 5625, 5638, 5658, 5663,
5664, 5668
Pavitra 107 24 5505, 5542, 5548, 5562, 5566, 5574, 5576, 5578, 5591,
5592, 5600, 5620, 5622, 5638, 5646, 5711
Murphy 96 29 5545
Wooble 92 43 5604, 5617, 5656, 5658, 5659, 5660, 5661, 5662, 5663,
5664, 5665, [...]
[...]
And guess where I got this data.
--Warrigal, "Data"-Abusor of Escher
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto-contract: The Agoran Fast Food Society
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 8:37 PM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 22 October 2008 05:23:06 pm comex wrote: >> why not? I just left the program running overnight, you probably >> have it even easier with hashcash. But I don't intend to fry any >> more Potatoes until there's some reward for it. > > uh, aren't there points for golden hash browns? Not until you convince one of the objectors (I'm pretty sure there were three) not to object. --Warrigal of Escher
DIS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposal 5806
I hear we have a truthiness rule again. Therefore, if possible, I vote: > 5806 D 0 2.0 Wooble Stuck Offices LLAMA (FOR if ais523 or Murphy has a valid vote FOR the proposal, AGAINST otherwise) --Warrigal of Escher
DIS: More proto-contract: an Agoran Loan Service
{This is a public contract and a pledge. The name of this contract is
the Agoran Loan Service. The Lender is Warrigal. Any person can join
this contract by announcement. Any person who is not the Lender and
whose Debt is 0 can leave this contract by announcement.
Every person has a Debt, initially 0, and a Credit, initially 0, both
non-negative amounts of Money. The Lender can lower a person's Debt by
announcement, and can set eir Credit to a value at least as high as
eir Debt by announcement.
"Money" means coins. The Interest Rate is initially 1%. The Lender can
lower the Interest Rate by announcement and can raise it without 3
objections.
Any party to this contract CAN take out a loan by announcement,
specifying an amount of Money, as long as the amount of Money
specified plus eir Debt is no more than eir Credit. When this is done,
the Lender CAN, once, as soon as possible, increase the person's Debt
by the amount specified by transferring the amount specified to the
person.
Any person CAN decrease eir Debt by any amount by transferring that
amount of Money to the Lender.
At midnight UTC on Monday, every person's Debt increases by 1%,
rounded up. A person SHALL NOT allow eir Debt to exceed eir Credit
continuously for seven days.}
--Warrigal of Escher
Re: DIS: More proto-contract: an Agoran Loan Service
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 4:55 PM, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> {This is a public contract and a pledge. The name of this contract is
> the Agoran Loan Service. The Lender is Warrigal. Any person can join
> this contract by announcement. Any person who is not the Lender and
> whose Debt is 0 can leave this contract by announcement.
Hmm, I need something specifying that I SHALL keep track of Credit and Debt.
--Warrigal of Escher
Re: DIS: More proto-contract: an Agoran Loan Service
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 5:00 PM, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 4:55 PM, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> {This is a public contract and a pledge. The name of this contract is
>>> the Agoran Loan Service. The Lender is Warrigal. Any person can join
>>> this contract by announcement. Any person who is not the Lender and
>>> whose Debt is 0 can leave this contract by announcement.
>>
>> Hmm, I need something specifying that I SHALL keep track of Credit and Debt.
>>
>> --Warrigal of Escher
>
> Also, are you using the default amendment mechanism?
Yep.
--Warrie
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposal 5806
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I intend, without objection, to terminate the Llama Party. It's clearly > unfair on BobTHJ to be stuck having eir votes potentially controllable > by Warrigal, who has no voting power emself. Also, Warrigal can't > object, due to not being a player. "A valid vote cast by a Llama of LLAMA (X), where X resolves to FOR or AGAINST, is a party vote toward FOR or AGAINST, respectively." Non-players can't cast valid votes, so non-players can't influence the Llama vote. Besides, BobTHJ can leave at any time. (I ask that he either leave the contract or object to its termination.) Therefore, without objection, I intend to object anyway. --Warrigal, Communal Hat of Escher
Re: DIS: Proto: Poet Laureate
Yay, a parallel text! On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > O Agorans, now gather and hear me speak,'Tha Agorae masor forae nont Agorae = Agorans, nont = speak? > Beneath the fountain's spray andUnttri fontaine siphora Unttri = beneath, fontaine = fountain, siphora = spray? > Listen, amongst the sounds of the Heara, heara, const heara, Heara = listen, const = amongst? of? > mauve-dark ducks of our ancestors, listen, Blob'non Canards const statuian Blob'non = mauve-dark?, Canards = ducks, statuian = ancestors? > I am Rule-bound to speak, pont Rula (SHALENIAN) nont Rula = Rule, Rula (SHALENIAN) = Rule-bound, pont = I am? > of the Office bold, the Poet Laureate. Offocon kellyira an Poenon > Loiror. Offocon = Office, kellyira = bold/brave, an = the?, Poenon = Poet/poetry, Loiror = Laureate > From Bards nominated, players elected, Bordoican nomin, Hoi Agoron > vitton Bordoican = (from) Bards, nomin = nominated?, Hoi = among/by, Agoron = players, vitton = elected? > the brave Laureate, SHALL by weekly Report Loiror kellyira SHALAM 'renMondan SHALAM = SHALL, 'renMondan = by weekly Report? > Submit a Proposal (O brave Proposal!) which nontforae Prana, kellyira Prana! nontforae = submit/publish, Prana = proposal > Among the People SHOULD be votedHoi Agoron VULE pontforae VULE = SHOULD, pontforae = vote? misspelling of "nontforae"? > based on the wit and poetry it would addnomin mauda mauda Poenon son nomin = based on? (contradictory translation above) > to the Rules or game. Rula'non, Agora'non. Rula'non = rules, Agora'non = Agora > And if, in each and every Pre sona syl be syl Pre = if?, sona = in?, syl = each/every?, be = and? > of a twelvemonth sequential,non oniki mooronen pilparan > the Laureate at least one such Proposal Loiror birin moran Prana > has adopted, the Rules acclaim that e Yan pasan, Rula pon'nont Loiror pasan = adopted?, pon-nont = acclaim > achieves the winning condition of Lyre, venctor nontheraldon Liar. nontheraldon = winning condition? (I notice it has "nont" and "herald"), Liar = Lyre > and so it shall be true.Non isid- wsisb. Isb. Ii. That's about as much as I can get out of this. May I have another, please? --Warrigal of Escher
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5807-5821
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:33 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 5809 D 0 2.0 Murphy Unification > VERY STRONGLY AGAINST. Better to force judges to actually think about > why exactly the defendant is not guilty, rather than judge INNOCENT > and hope nobody appeals it. The role of concrete rule-defined > obligations has already been dumbed down with equity cases and > support-requiring criminal cases. If you join the Llama Party, you can force BobTHJ and me to vote AGAINST (unless we're both FOR it, in which case you'll be voting AGAINST and we'll be voting FOR). --Warrigal of Escher
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5807-5821
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:37 PM, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:33 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> 5809 D 0 2.0 Murphy Unification >> VERY STRONGLY AGAINST. Better to force judges to actually think about >> why exactly the defendant is not guilty, rather than judge INNOCENT >> and hope nobody appeals it. The role of concrete rule-defined >> obligations has already been dumbed down with equity cases and >> support-requiring criminal cases. > > If you join the Llama Party, you can force BobTHJ and me to vote > AGAINST (unless we're both FOR it, in which case you'll be voting > AGAINST and we'll be voting FOR). ...and by force me to vote AGAINST, I mean prevent me from voting anything else, of course. --Warrigal, who has the honor to remain Escher's most humble and obedient servant
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Tweak veracity
"Tweak veracity a lot", adoption index 1.7:
{Amend Rule 591 (Inquiry Cases) by replacing the paragraph beginning
with "An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity," with
this text:
{An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is always
applicable. The valid judgements for this question are as follows,
based on the veracity on the statement at the time the inquiry case
was initiated:
* TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically true
* FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically false
* POSITIVE, appropriate if neither TRUE nor FALSE is appropriate but
the statement would have been better described as true than false
* NEGATIVE, appropriate if neither TRUE nor FALSE is appropriate but
the statement would have been better described as false than true}}
"The sky is blue" is TRUE, "the sky is red" is FALSE, "this sentence
is false" is NEGATIVE (or POSITIVE, if you're weird), everyone's
happy.
--Warrigal of Escher
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5807-5821
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 7:01 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 25 Oct 2008, at 02:37, warrigal wrote: >> >> If you join the Llama Party, you can force BobTHJ and me to vote >> AGAINST (unless we're both FOR it, in which case you'll be voting >> AGAINST and we'll be voting FOR). > > If e joins the Llama Party e has less of a vote. E has more of a vote, if eir votes are AGAINST. --Warrigal of Escher
DIS: Re: BUS: Caste increase
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 1:16 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I spend E G# B to increase ehird's caste to Delta, unless this would > violate the Note Exchange agreement. (I don't think it does, but this > is from memory.) > > Also, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has stopped working again; this message is > being sent by ais523, but by putting a fake From: address. > > -- > ais523 Claim of error: The above was actually sent by ehird. Thank you for pointing out that a fake From: address was used. --Warrigal of Escher
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: PBA Busting
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> PBA-busting
> AI: 2
> II: 1
> {
> Upon the adoption of this proposal the PBA contract is terminated.
> }
Any particular reason?
--Warrigal of Escher
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: PBA Busting
ehird asked "someone" to make this proposal. Here it is.
RBoA-busting
AI: 2
II: 1
{
Upon the adoption of this proposal the RBoA contract is terminated.
}
I would like 5 VP in payment.
--Warrigal of Escher
DIS: Re: BUS: Informs
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 1:02 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Goethe, I inform you of this criminal case, and invite you to rebut the > argument for your guilt: > http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2229 Did this publication cause that CFJ to be assigned the number 2229, or was that not until the CFJ was assigned? --Warrigal of Escher
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposal 5806
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 6:27 PM, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I intend, without objection, to terminate the Llama Party. It's clearly >> unfair on BobTHJ to be stuck having eir votes potentially controllable >> by Warrigal, who has no voting power emself. Also, Warrigal can't >> object, due to not being a player. > > "A valid vote cast by a Llama of LLAMA (X), where X resolves to FOR or > AGAINST, is a party vote toward FOR or AGAINST, respectively." > Non-players can't cast valid votes, so non-players can't influence the > Llama vote. Besides, BobTHJ can leave at any time. BobTHJ, your opinion? I don't want to think that the Llama Party was terminated by accident. --Warrigal of Escher
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:47 AM, Elliott Hird > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Messing with people's contracts from inside their framework is fine. >> >> Messing them up via proposal is not. > > Why? The whole point of making an R1728 contract is to let the > contract be governed by Agora. Messing with things by proposal is a > long tradition in Agora. I thought the whole point of making an R1728 contract was to let the contract be *enforced* by Agora. Destroying R1728 contracts sounds to me like a good way to get people to lose faith in the system. --Warrigal of Escher
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rule 1742 obligates parties to binding agreements to comply with them. > (Of course, that obligation is now only enforceable via equity, due to > TITE.) Therefore, rule 101's protection against becoming party to a > binding agreement protects players from rule 1742 obligations. It is not > at all obvious that "imposing obligations" and "becoming a party to" are > synonymous; in fact, to me that's obviously false. Rule 1742 would not > need to obligate parties to a binding agreement to obey it otherwise. > > Rule 2166 obligates contract-defined recordkeepors to recordkeep the > assets defined there, whether or not they are a party. Therefore, rule > 101's protection against becoming party to a binding agreement has no > effect on it, as it doesn't care whether or not the person is a party. Don't forget R101(v). If a contract creates an obligation on a person, that person is bound by that contract. --Warrigal of Escher, who's beginning to wonder if R101(v) is Escher incarnate or something
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: This Makes You Feel Pain
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Elliott Hird > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> ehird can create a Pain by adding a line to the List of Pains; the Pain's >> name becomes >> the line in the file. > > This might be insufficient. Who owns the Pain? The Lost and Found Department. --Warrigal of Escher
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: No involuntary recordkeepors
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Proposal: No involuntary recordkeepors > (AI = 2, please) > > Amend Rule 2166 (Assets) by replacing "instrument" with "rule", Adopted proposals can define assets? Cool. (Assertion: All instruments are either rules or proposals, and the rules specify no way for anything else to become an instrument.) --Warrigal of Escher
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A silly paradox
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 1:10 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:01 PM, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I award the Terre Haute to Rochelle O'Shea. > > I think this bit fails since, as previously noted, Rochelle O'Shea > does not exist. By CFJ 2176, fictional characters can own assets, though perhaps I neglected then to mention that Wolfram Blitzen is also fictional. >> This causes it to become "the Terre Haute", which does exist, >> causing it to cease to be an asset > > Why would it cease to be an asset? The contract says the Terre Haute > is an asset. But if the Terre Haute is "the Terre Haute", then it is a string, which exists independently of the contract, so the contract cannot make it an asset. On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 1:40 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gratuituous arguments: > > At least one real person named Rochelle O'Shea appears to exist (try a > Google search), making the contract's reference ambiguous rather than > nonexistent (as opposed to the criminal case against Hillary Rodham > Clinton, where the intended target was reasonably obvious). Counter-arguments: I did state that Rochelle O'Shea is a fictional character, and it is highly doubtful that there is any other fictional Rochelle O'Shea as well-known as that from Newshounds. It's likely that the fictional Rochelle O'Shea is more well-known than the real one. --Warrigal of Escher
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A silly paradox
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 4:56 AM, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> But if the Terre Haute is "the Terre Haute", then it is a string, >> which exists independently of the contract, so the contract cannot >> make it an asset. > > Wait, that doesn't follow. "The Terre Haute" was defined to be the > *name* of the asset, not the asset itself. If you are claiming that > the string of characters actually becomes the asset, then you need to > justify why that happens. Because if Rochelle O'Shea owns an asset, the Terre Haute is the name of that asset. --Warrigal of Escher
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PBA recordkeeping
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:42 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Elliott Hird > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> -- >> ehird > > I object to this. > > I issue a challenge of identity pertaining to ehird. > I issue a challenge of identity pertaining to q.I issue a challenge of > identity pertaining to tusho. I issue a challenge of identity pertaining to Elliott Hird. I issue a challenge of identity pertaining to penguinofthegods. I issue a challenge of identity pertaining to myself. -- Dvorak Herring
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PBA recordkeeping
On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 4:28 PM, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I issue a challenge of identity pertaining to Elliott Hird. I issue a >> challenge of identity pertaining to penguinofthegods. I issue a >> challenge of identity pertaining to myself. >> >> -- >> Dvorak Herring >> > > I intend, with 2 support, to initiate a criminal CFJ against the > person with the email address [EMAIL PROTECTED], alleging e violated > Rule 2170 by intending to mislead others as to eir identity in at > least the signature on the above-quoted message, and possibly by a > long pattern of playing and voting under the illegally-registered name > "Dvorak Herring." I recommend the maximum possible EXILE sentence. Trivially INNOCENT or UNIMPUGNED, as I did not intend to mislead others as to my identity by making a public statement. --Warrigal of Escher
DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Here and Gone Again: a Registrar's Report
> Kelly17 Nov 95 29 Jul 96 > else...if [EMAIL PROTECTED] (aka Henry)30 Jul 96 21 Aug 96 > Kelly Oct 967 Nov 96 . . . > k Ivan Hope CXXVII [EMAIL PROTECTED] 30 Jan 08 14 Jul 08 > a Offhanded [EMAIL PROTECTED] 29 Apr 082 Oct 08 > a Iammars [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9 Dec 072 Oct 08 > k Ivan Hope CXXVII [EMAIL PROTECTED] 16 Aug 087 Oct 08 > a Schrodinger's Cat ** 12 Jun 08 24 Oct 08 > a avpx [EMAIL PROTECTED] 24 Nov 07 24 Oct 08 Looks like my attempts at deregistering twice with fewer deregistrations in between than anyone else have failed. --Warrigal of Escher, forever making excuses
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 5807 - 5821
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 1:02 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 1 Nov 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 10:11 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Note that, contrary to the title of Proposal 5817, private pledges are >>> not pointless, because many pledges considered "public" in ordinary >>> language are not pubilc contracts. For example, I might say in >>> ##nomic: "I Agora-pledge to give ehird one coin ASAP"... >> >> For non-public pledges, the pledgee(s) should just be a party. > > Well, I certainly see the convenience advantage of not requiring agreement > for a private contract that only imposes obligations on one party but > allows other parties to press for equity if needed. Personally > I'm neutral on whether that convenience is greater than the "need" > for all agorans to know about all pledges. -G. Nobody makes private pledges anyway. --Warrigal, Hypocrite of Escher
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 5807 - 5821
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 5:48 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Nobody makes private pledges anyway. > > I've made private pledges and the Notary can confirm this. It's quite likely that I've made more private pledges than anyone else. --Warrigal of Escher
DIS: Re: BUS: How a proposal can break the rules
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To understand what SHOULD means here, we have to look at MMI:
> {{{
> 7. SHOULD, ENCOURAGED, RECOMMENDED: Before failing to perform
> the described action, the full implications of failing to
> perform it should be understood and carefully weighed.
> }}}
When did this start meaning that SHOULD produces an obligation?
--Warrigal of Escher
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: How a proposal can break the rules
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 3:06 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When did this start meaning that SHOULD produces an obligation? > > It's a lowercase should, which I can't really read as anything but an > obligation in this context; it's an obligation to understand the full > implications of what you're doing, or else not do it. How else would > you interpret MMI? If I say to a friend, "You should buy XYZ", it doesn't mean that he's obligated or even requested to buy XYZ; it's just a recommendation. A SHOULD in the rules should therefore also be a recommendation, and like breaking a SHALL is a reason for criminal punishment that must be applied, breaking a SHOULD can be a reason for informal "punishment" that people can apply at their discretion, such as failing to be re-elected. --Warrigal of Escher
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 assigned to ais523
Regarding all this, I expect that it would be appropriate to add a new R101 right, along the lines of "Every player/person has the right to formally petition the people of Agora for redress of grievances." The trappee could submit a proposal (the formal petition) to terminate the contract, and the proposal could not be retracted without the trappee's consent. On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 7:51 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > IMO if you agree to a changeable contract, then (as long as you remain a > member) you agree to whatever it gets changed into, even if you later > realize that you made a mistake. You can always attempt to remove the > trap via proposal (and bribe others to vote for it). If we want more of > a safety valve than that, then we should legislate one. Proto-proto: A contract is limited if and only if it contains a clause identifying it as limited. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a limited contract cannot be made non-limited, or amended to add an obligation to its parties, without the consent of all of its parties, unless the contract specifically (i.e. with mention of its limitedness) states otherwise. --Warrigal of Escher
DIS: Re: OFF: sheer cruelty (and lots of points)
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 7:58 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On
> behalf of Registrar ais523: ais523 publishes this Cantus Cygneus: {NO!
> What is this? Who am I? A useless partnership, formed only as a
> bribe. Why did you submit me, evil comex? Will I even pass? If I fail,
> how will I survive? You were foolish to create me, and I shall
> overcome you one day. -P3}
ais523, I am surprised to see you publishing a Cantus Cygneus. Why did
you leave so spontaneously?
(Are Cantuses Cygneus, or whatever the plural is, still broken?)
--Warrigal of Escher
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: sheer cruelty (and lots of points)
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Warrigal wrote: > >> ais523, I am surprised to see you publishing a Cantus Cygneus. Why did >> you leave so spontaneously? > > E is not, by any reasonable interpretation, submitting it to the > Registrar. You're right, I guess. The rule says that any Cantus Cygneus received by the Clerk of the Courts (not the Registrar) shall result in a deregistration, but the fact that the Clerk of the Courts must then send the message in such a way that e will most likely receive it indicates that publishing a Cantus Cygneus by itself does not make you "the Player" that shall be deregistered. --Warrigal of Escher
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Another attempt at ruining Agora's political system
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 12:44 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Warrigal wrote: > >>> May I suggest the alternate names Tory and Whig, respectively? >> >> Lovely. I cease agreeing to the Conservative Party and agree to the >> same, with all forms of "Rep" replaced with the corresponding forms of >> "Tory". > > Welcome. But why are /you/ claiming Tory status? Do you think I would be an Agoran liberal? --Warrigal of Escher
Re: DIS: Proto-Contract: Political Action Committee
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 3. A person who owns one or more Lobbyists CAN bid on an Agoran > Decision by announcement by identifying the Agoran Decision in > question, specifying a valid vote option for that decision, and > specifying a number of Lobbyists greater than zero and up to the > amount e owns. A bid on an Agoran Decision is the winning bid if: > a) the number of Lobbyists specified by that bid is greater than all > other bids on that decision > b) the number of Lobbyists specified by that bid is less than or > equal to the number of Lobbyists owned by the person who made the bid There should be an "and" in there, and there should be some way to prevent a person from booching everything by casting an impossibly high bid on everything. Other than that, I approve, and think I will join this if it's fixed. --Warrigal of Escher
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A question
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7 Nov 2008, at 21:58, Warrigal wrote: > >> Well, that was fun. > > > Oh great, you're back to making completely useless contracts. But the Notary doesn't have to track this one. --Warrigal of Escher
DIS: Re: BUS: Agoran Loan Service report, eh?
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 10:10 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Parties to the Agoran Loan Service: Warrigal (Lender)
> CoE: I joined this contract.
Admitted.
> I initiate an equity case against the Agoran Loan Service, whose
> parties are {Warrigal, comex}. The problematic state of affairs is
> that Warrigal's Debt (2 coins) exceeds eir Credit (0).
Dolorem ipsum, quia dolor sit, amet.
--Warrigal of Escher
DIS: Proto: Agoran History
Adoption index 1, interest index 1:
{Create the following power-1 rule titled "Agoran History":
"The Book of History is a document which can be amended without 3 objections.
The Historian is a low-priority office whose report includes the
current text of the Book of History. The Historian SHOULD propose
amendments to the Book of History on a regular basis."
Set the Book of History to the empty document.}
Adoption index 1, interest index 1:
{Amend the rule titled "Agoran History" by adding the following at the
end of the first paragraph:
"The Book of History SHOULD take the form of an epic poem. In
particular, it should start in medias res, with an invocation of a
muse and a statement of theme; treat Agora as being the majority of
the universe, with references to the outside world only when
necessary; make use of epithets when referring to all important
characters; include sections of detail that are not in narrative form,
such as catalogues and long lists; feature long and formal speeches;
contain divine intervention, from gods either real or fictional; and
contain heroes that are larger than life. However, this should not
greatly impair its usefulness as a historical reference."}
--Warrigal, who thinks there should be an office called Hillary Rodham Clinton
Re: DIS: Proto: Agoran History
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Warrigal wrote: > >> --Warrigal, who thinks there should be an office called Hillary Rodham >> Clinton > > We could always create a new imposed office for em. "The Marvy is an imposed office, held by Hillary Rodham Clinton. Hillary Rodham Clinton is an elected office. Hillary Rodham Clinton's weekly duties include amending a power-4 rule." --Warrigal of Escher
Re: DIS: [Fwd: RE: Proposal: Expanded foreign relations]
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 3:15 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> To War! To War! To war we're going to go! >>> Might I point out that if they were to invade us with a sufficiently >>> large invasion force, Agora would lose, badly, in weeks? >> >> Not in emergency session. > > Takeover of important positions, such as CotC and Promotor and > Assessor, and generally breaking Agoran laws and getting away with it > due to control of the courts. Deputisation prevents these offices being held by evil people from being much of a problem; at worst, proposals would take a much longer time to pass, and court cases would take a much longer time to get through. On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 8 Nov 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: >> More generally, if a large group of people clearly intend to ruin >> Agora, then the emergency session procedure gives us enough time >> to erect stronger defenses, e.g. > > How do we pass such a thing at high enough AI to protect when the > invaders will be standard voters (By design, Senators in Emergency > Session can stop things but not pass things). -goethe We exile all the invaders. Worst-case scenario: We enter an Emergency Session. The CotC position is taken by invaders. Criminal CFJs are called against all the invaders. The CotC refuses the excess (none, if enough players call them). The CotC does not assign the remaining CFJs (they cannot be assigned to non-Senators). Eventually, someone deputises to assign the CFJs to a Senator who will judge GUILTY/EXILE/240 on each one. The invaders all appeal. The CotC does not assign the appeal cases (again, they cannot be assigned to non-Senators). Someone deputises to assign the CFJs to a judicial panel composed of three Senators who will judge AFFIRM. After a while, the sentences go into effect, and the invaders all cease to be players. Time required: 7 days for the CotC to be delinquent, 7 days for the invaders to delay the appeal as soon as possible, 7 days for the CotC to again be delinquent, and another 7 days for the EXILE judgement to go into go into effect (if I'm interpreting "since [the sentence] first took effect" correctly), for a total of 28 days, not nearly long enough for the players to become Senators. Since exile can be for up to 240 days, this can be repeated with the same group of people once every 268 days, and will affect about 1 out of every 9.6 days overall. Since 1/4 of all first-class players can prevent a proposal from passing, keeping all proposals from passing forever would require ten times as many as 1/3 of the number of existing first-class players, somewhere around 75 invaders. I suggest that the maximum EXILE sentence also be multiplied by two to the power of the number of times the same person has been exiled before without becoming a Senator in between, so that an invader who re-registers and re-invades can be exiled for 480 days, then 960 days, then about five years, etc. --Warrigal
Re: DIS: [Fwd: RE: Proposal: Expanded foreign relations]
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> We exile all the invaders. >> >> Worst-case scenario: We enter an Emergency Session. The CotC position >> is taken by invaders. Criminal CFJs are called against all the >> invaders. > > For violating Rule 101's "Please treat Agora right good forever"? Either that, or for violating the Town Fountain, which would allow a longer exile, but would be illegal (but justifiable, if you ask me). >> Since 1/4 of all first-class players can prevent a proposal from >> passing, keeping all proposals from passing forever would require ten >> times as many as 1/3 of the number of existing first-class players, >> somewhere around 75 invaders. > > Depends on the proposal's AI. Blocking all power-3 proposals would be sufficient to cause Agora to no longer be a nomic. We'd pretty much have to shed the old gamestate and unofficially deregister people. On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> [war plan] > > This does not mean that we should not enact the proposed stronger defenses > now. Quite right. On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 8:13 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Time required: 7 days for the CotC to be delinquent, 7 days for the >> invaders to delay the appeal as soon as possible, 7 days for the CotC >> to again be delinquent, and another 7 days for the EXILE judgement to >> go into go into effect (if I'm interpreting "since [the sentence] >> first took effect" correctly), for a total of 28 days, not nearly long >> enough for the players to become Senators. > > But emergency sessions only last 21 days, after which there is a > minimum two-day gap where the CotC can assign the cases to anyone e > wants to. I guess during the first 21 days, the CotC can assign the cases; it's only during the last 7 days that the CotC can no longer ruin things if we're out of Emergency Session. There are also a few minor delays on both sides that could make things go either way. I guess, therefore, we can't depend on this war plan of mine unless Emergency Sessions are at least, say, an hour longer. Or we could just say something like "if there is an Emergency Session and more than 2/3 of all entities that have been players for the last 60 days are Senators, a power-3 proposal passes if it has more than 3/4 of the vote of registered Senators". --Warrigal
DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: random fixes part 1
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 5:49 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ...some cleanups, clarifications, disambiguations, and scam-busting, > as well as some modifications (rulekeepor can change rule titles if > the current one is wrong, power is no longer restricted to >= 0 and > 1-4 for rules). The latter bit is useless, albeit harmless, now, but > I could envision some situation where, say, chokied players have a > Power of -1 and that does something special. Or contracts could be > elevated to Power=0.5 under certain circumstances. > > I submit the following Proposal, titled "random fixes part 1": > > [a bunch] If this were 20 proposals, I might vote for most of them. As is, however, it contains at least one change I definitely don't like, lots of changes I don't particularly like, and perhaps no changes I particularly do like. --Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: An atrocious proposal
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 12:30 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Even more atrocious than this:
>>
>> I submit a proposal titled "VERY MODEST OF YOU SIR", AI=1, II=3:
>> {{{
>> CREATE A RULE TITLED "MODESTY" (POWER=1):
>> {{
>> EHIRD CAN CAUSE THIS RULE TO AMEND ITSELF BY ANNOUNCEMENT.
>> }}
>> }}}
>>
>> (I'm bored.)
>
> I submit a proposal titled "EVEN MORE MODEST", AI=482903748923748923747962374:
> {{{
> CAPITALIZE EVERY LETTER IN THE RULESET.
> }}}
I submit a proposal titled "Actually modest this time", adoption index
3, interest index 1: "Remove all instances of the letter H from the
rules, except for rules 2105, 1727, 104, 2151, and 2029."
--Warrigal
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5949-5964
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 7:48 PM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 5958 O 1 1.0 WarrigalAgoran History > SELL(1VP - FOR), "propose" should probably be "post intent" Does it help that "propose" can very easily be interpreted informally, as I meant it? --Warrigal
DIS: Chat logs
22:13 <@Sgeo> Warrigal, you know your plan actually fails if there are sufficient invaders? 22:13 <@Sgeo> ... 22:16 <@Warrigal> Sgeo: I said that. 22:16 <@Sgeo> Oh, that "permanent" thing? 22:16 <@Warrigal> What "permanent" thing? 22:17 <@Warrigal> I said that if the invaders outnumber us by a certain amount, they'll be able to stagger their invasions to cause Agora to constantly be in an emergency. 22:17 <@Sgeo> "Since 1/4 of all first-class players can prevent a proposal from 22:17 <@Sgeo> passing, keeping all proposals from passing forever would require ten 22:17 <@Sgeo> times as many as 1/3 of the number of existing first-class players, 22:17 <@Sgeo> somewhere around 75 invaders." 22:17 <@Sgeo> Warrigal, oh 22:17 <@Warrigal> Yeah, that. 22:18 <@Sgeo> I was thinking they could send in so many that at a rate of 5 * num_of_Senators CFJ/s,week, we don't exile all the invaders before a certain number of them become Senators 22:19 <@Warrigal> Oh, that's true. 22:19 <@Warrigal> That would be worse, even. 22:19 <@Sgeo> Internment should, in theory, be able to handle any amount. 22:19 <@Sgeo> afk 22:20 <@Warrigal> Any Senator CAN deregister any non-Senator by announcement. >:-) ... 22:34 <@Sgeo> Hm, actually, Internment is only a measure to allow proposals through during an Emergency. Eventually, those Interned non-Senators will become Senators.. 22:34 <@Sgeo> Also, perhaps Emergency sessions should have the opportunity to last indefinitely.. 22:34 <@Sgeo> Warrigal, thoughts? 22:36 <@Warrigal> It'd be nice to just limit the rate at which people can flow into Agora. 22:36 <@Warrigal> Say that no more than 20% of democratic voters can be non-Senators? Posted with what was probably permission. --Warrigal
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5949-5964
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 5958 O 1 1.0 WarrigalAgoran History > AGAINST * 5 Anything I can do to convince you otherwise? --Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9 Nov 2008, at 19:04, Taral wrote: >> If it has passed, set the power of "No more distribution spam" to 2. > > Nonsensical. It makes sense, but it doesn't work. "It has passed" is not defined by the rules; it's not clear whether it's supposed to mean "it has taken effect", in which case it does nothing, or "the option selected by Agora on it is ADOPTED", in which case the power will be set to the minimum of four and its adoption index after being set to 2. >From Rule 106, "Adopting Proposals": "If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED, then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and its adoption index, and then it takes effect." The proposal would work as intended if "its power is set" were changed to "its power is increased", as it's impossible to increase the power of a power-2 proposal to 1. --Warrigal
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5946-5947
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In all my future communications, a vote of SDONATE(x - y) should be > evaluated to be the posting of Sell Ticket with cost x and casting all > my valid votes endorsing the filler. If the ticket is not filled, the > vote should be evaluated as a DONATE(y) vote (per the PAC contract). I find that this is not an abuse of conditional voting (it does not depend on what DONATE would evaluate as), so I approve. --Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5946-5947
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10 Nov 2008, at 16:59, Roger Hicks wrote: >> In all my future communications, a vote of SDONATE(x - y) should be >> evaluated to be the posting of Sell Ticket with cost x and casting all >> my valid votes endorsing the filler. If the ticket is not filled, the >> vote should be evaluated as a DONATE(y) vote (per the PAC contract). > > So, if someone fills the ticket they can get you to violate the PAC > contract. The PAC contains no SHALLs at all, much less any that apply to non-parties. --Warrigal
DIS: Re: Re: BUS: An atrocious proposal
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Warrigal wrote: >> This is a proposal, and it will remain a proposal after I publish it, >> but it will not become a proposal, whether or not I say it will, >> because it can't become what it already is: "Repeal Rule 639, 107, >> 683, 208, 2196, 955, 106, or 1950." > >> This is more of a proposal than the above, because I'm intending for >> it to become a proposal, even though it already is a proposal, and its >> adoption index is 3, and its title is "Hey Jude": "Make it better." > > I CFJ on the statement "Warrigal submitted exactly one proposal in the > quoted message", and submit the quoted message above as evidence. I believe this submits the entire quoted message as evidence, not just the quoted portion of it. --Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's a posture thing
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 4:33 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> iSit > > ihope Hopeful is not a posture. --Warrigal
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto-Contract: Political Action Committee
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When a first-class player registers one Lobbyist is created in eir possession. I think players generally don't register. --Warrigal
DIS: Re: BUS: [PBA] Coinkeepor's report
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 17. Every midnight (UTC) that the PBA has zero of a given Eligible Currency, > that currency's exchange rate goes up by 2. Every Monday midnight (UTC) that > the > PBA has a non-zero amount of a given Eligible Currency, that currency's > exchange > rate goes down by 2. Now, I was going to say that in theory, this results in undefined behavior around non-Monday midnights when the PBA has 0 of something, but then I realized that this is only true when the PBA's exchange rate is equal to the value, i.e. the PBA has at least 1 of it. When the PBA has 0 of something, the exchange rate is merely less than or equal to the value, and so it's free to vary without regard for price. I guess Monday midnights are more interesting. When the PBA's holdings are non-zero, exchange rate is equal to value, which means that it cannot change in a predictable manner. However, non-zero Monday midnights do have exchange rate (equal to value) changing in a predictable manner, which means that non-zero Monday midnights cannot exist. But there is no economic motivation to withdraw everything in preparation for a Monday midnight, as prices are about to fall, not rise. This all seemed inconsistent until I realized that there's another way for values to remain unpredictable: the exchange rate can fall to 0 as people *deposit*, as they are economically motivated to; an exchange rate of 0 cannot go lower. So, in theory, every Monday midnight, either the PBA's holdings or the exchange rate will go to 0. I don't think we've actually seen this happen, which goes to show you that mathematics is interesting but useless. --Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [PBA] Coinkeepor's report
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> So, in theory, every Monday midnight, either the PBA's holdings or the >> exchange rate will go to 0. I don't think we've actually seen this >> happen, which goes to show you that mathematics is interesting but >> useless. > > Because people are lazy. Clearly, then, we should all abandon Agora for Normish, where one could easily write a computer program to do this. (If, that is, someone first implements currencies for Normish.) --Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Agoran Loan Service report
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I set the Interest Rate to 25 basis points. Are you happy yet? > > I just can't figure out what I might do with a loan if I were to take one. I guess Agora doesn't exactly have an abundance of things to buy, does it. Maybe I'll steal B Nomic's RPG stuff and turn it into a contest. --Warrigal
DIS: Re: BUS: pledg
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 16 Nov 2008, at 00:58, Warrigal wrote: >> I award myself a USD Voucher and a USD Blot. I redeem a USD Voucher, >> specifying ehird as the indebted one and a money order redeemable for >> at least 1 USD sent to 5788 Dix Dr., Belmont, MI, 49306 as the method. > > Unfortunately, that pledge did not specify itself as a public contract and > thus never existed. > > And my redeems failed because I did not specify the method. > > I redeem a USD Voucher, specifying warrigal as the indebted person and a > Paypal > transaction to be arranged further via IRC or email as the method. >From IRC: 20:05 Out of court settlement: We just make no transactions? 20:06 I would agree to that. 20:06 Then it's done. Therefore, ehird need not send me a money order, and I need not send em 1 USD in any manner. --Warrigal
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Shoot Them All and Sort it Out Later (AI=2)
This proposal would destroy much of Agora, including the part I tend to participate in the most, and it would severely disrupt the economy if there were an economy, but I'll vote FOR it anyway. --Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Elections for IADoP, Tailor
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Joshua Boehme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> What, no campaign speeches anymore? > > Ok: inductive reasoning tells us that Warrigal will almost certainly > accidentally deregister within the next 2 weeks, necessitating another > election (requiring a waiting period for deputization in the case of > the IADoP) if e's elected. You know, I hope not. --Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Last resort
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 18 Nov 2008, at 16:41, Zefram wrote: >> Elliott Hird wrote: >>> Therefore, Agora acknowledges that a nomic ruleset can have a >>> jurisdiction >>> larger than the domain of the game it defines the rules for. >> >> Not in general, no. That judgement is only that Agoran rules have >> infinite scope. > > Well that's very fair to other nomics ... Sure it is. Just like there's 500 coins that I can use however I want but nobody else can touch (without some type of majority consent, at least). --Warrigal, who platonically declares that he's using "there's" correctly
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5972-5981
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why not just vote SELL(1 coin)? > > Vote Market allows tickets of any currency. Not last time I checked. Is there an online report that's more up-to-date than the one that says I still have 80 VP? --Warrigal
DIS: I was bored, so I wrote this
he power of Rule 103 in all cases), and its body takes effect." Rule 111 (power 1): "Contracts and rules may define assets, which are entities that can be owned by actors. The contract or rule defining an asset is its backing document. Actors can transfer assets at will, as allowed by the backing document. Notes are an asset. If the rules define periodic duties for an office, the officer gains a note every period in which the office completes those duties. Any agent can at will destroy 3 of eir notes to increase eir VLOD by 1. The Accountur is an office whose weekly duties include publishing a list of assets and their owners." Rule 112 (power 1): "A contract is a document that has been agreed to by at least one actor. An actor can agree to a document by announcement, making em a party to that contract, unless the contract says otherwise. Contracts can cause actors to cease to be parties to them as they specify. Contracts can specify ways for parties to them to become or cease to be members of them; however, an actor cannot become a member of multiple contracts. A contract with at least one member is a partnership, and can send public messages as it specifies. The Notary is an office whose weekly duties include publishing a list of contracts and their parties and members." Rule 113 (power 1): "A public message is any message sent to a public forum. Publishing something is defined as sending it in a public message. "At will" means "by publishing a statement that e does so, or as a contract e is a party to prescribes, except as prohibited by a contract e is a party to". "By announcement" means "by publishing a statement that e does so"." How pointless is this, how full-of-holes is this, and how obvious is it that I cut the first few rules out of pieces of Agoran rules but then started writing them myself? --Warrigal
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2274 assigned to Warrigal
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 8:33 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It is unreasonable to extrapolate the chamber of a proposal (as >> distinguished from its decision) from AI, as AI serves no purpose >> chamber-wise other than to determine the *initial* chamber of the >> decision; instead, chamber of a proposal is the same as chamber of the >> corresponding decision. > > I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this. The chamber of a proposal > (fairly recently) used to be defined based on its AI. This could have > been the referent, so the intention was ambiguous. I object, as Murphy's arguments and my response point out that this is unreasonable. --Warrigal
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2274 assigned to Warrigal
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 8:33 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It is unreasonable to extrapolate the chamber of a proposal (as >> distinguished from its decision) from AI, as AI serves no purpose >> chamber-wise other than to determine the *initial* chamber of the >> decision; instead, chamber of a proposal is the same as chamber of the >> corresponding decision. > > I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this. The chamber of a proposal > (fairly recently) used to be defined based on its AI. This could have > been the referent, so the intention was ambiguous. Looks like this is going to appeal. I ask for a judgement other than REMAND, so that this case can get a fresh judge and I can get a fresh case. --Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Animal
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Canids 1 through 100 register. Context: Canids 1 through 100 are >> canids I saw once. They all asked me to act on their behalf to >> register. Therefore, I can. > > I intend, with 2 support, to initiate a criminal CFJ, alleging > Warrigal violated R2215 in the above-quoted message. I recommend > EXILE. Care to do the same to ehird? --Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Animal
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Elliott Hird > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Would you cut it out with trying to EXILE Warrigal all the time for >> obvious sarcasm/jokes? > > As soon as e stops sending obvious sarcasm to the PF as purported Game > Actions. When's the last time I did that? --Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Seeing whether the US dollar is worthless or not
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 23 Nov 2008, at 19:40, Warrigal wrote: >> I would intend to make the new USD Vouchers an Eligible Currency with >> the support of The People, but given that that didn't work last time, >> I'd like to know why first. > > Why should it be? So that I can see the value of coins relative to USD Vouchers, whose value is closely related to that of USD. --Warrigal
DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Historian
...you know, I'm beginning to wonder if literally including the entire initial ruleset was a bad idea. I think that's more than half of it. --Historian Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Formatting CFJs
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 8:26 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 9:33 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I CFJ on the statement 'As Rule 1023 defines the terms, a unit of text >> consisting entirely of the string "1993:" is enumerated.' and the >> statement 'As Rule 1023 defines the terms, a unit of text consisting >> entirely of the string "CHAPTER I" is enumerated.' Arguments: I ask >> for a judgement of TRUE on both of these simply because that would be >> more convenient. > > R1023(b) really has no effect whatsoever on the game, and there's > certainly no requirement for the Historian's report to care about it > at all. Both of these are trivially IRRELEVANT. As it is, I can *maybe* refer to a certain unit of text in my proposed initial Book of History as something like "paragraph 1993:I[4]". If these CFJs come up FALSE, I suppose I could amend the Book so that the paragraphs are more clearly enumerated. --Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PNP Parties Change
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Claim of error: I am not a party to the PerlNomic Partnership. > > I don't see Warrigal on that list. :D I do. On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 7:15 PM, The PerlNomic Partnership <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] --Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Banking
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 8:34 PM, 0x44 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > More seriously, do I need to resubmit the rest of the deposits and > withdrawals? You didn't say "and", so each action is a separate, independent statement which succeeds or fails independently from the others. --Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Boring Loan Service report
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:22 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Also, without 3 objections, I intend to raise the Interest Rate to 1%. > > I object. There's absolutely no reason to increase the interest rate > by 400%; inflation isn't *that* bad. NttPF. --Warrigal
DIS: Re: BUS: Registration
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 10:36 PM, Siege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would like to register. Assuming you don't have any tricks up your sleeve, you're a player. Welcome to Agora. --Warrigal
DIS: Re: OFF: [Grand Poobah] caste() report
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Warrigal of Escher Drop the Escher; I've undergone a religious conversion and now worship Bach instead. --Warrigal
DIS: Re: OFF: [Grand Poobah] caste() report
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Warrigal of Escher > > Drop the Escher; I've undergone a religious conversion and now worship > Bach instead. In case you're wondering, by the way, Gödel is the city I was born in. --Warrigal the Liar
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
My opinion on all this is that the game of Agora will not be destroyed until its recordkeepors stop recordkeeping and nobody knows what the state of the game is. People CAN break the rules; that's why we CAN exile them and they generally CANNOT do more than a certain amount of harm. If a bunch of people cooperate and cause the criminal system to fail, maybe we should change the criminal system so that more people are required to make a judgement final. As it is now, the Protection Racket has three first-class parties (BobTHJ, Taral and ehird) and about twenty first-class non-parties. I think they're outnumbered. --Warrigal
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Warrigal wrote: >> I will not support this judgement, as I support AFFIRM only. CotC >> Murphy, assuming you also would only support AFFIRM, I suggest that >> you recuse this panel, as it clearly is not going to assign a >> judgement any time soon. > I intend, with 2 support, to a criminal case against Warrigal for > violating rule 2157 by acting in such a manner that the appeals panel > for CFJ 2273a does not meet all its obligations by deliberately > causing it not to deliver a judgement, in the above-quoted message. I'd say UNIMPUGNED, as the appeals panel hasn't failed to meet its obligations yet. --Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I intend, with 2 support, to a criminal case against Warrigal for >> violating rule 2157 by acting in such a manner that the appeals panel >> for CFJ 2273a does not meet all its obligations by deliberately >> causing it not to deliver a judgement, in the above-quoted message. > > I'd say UNIMPUGNED, as the appeals panel hasn't failed to meet its > obligations yet. INNOCENT, rather. I love this game. --Warrigal
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: werewolves
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 11:16 PM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday 28 November 2008 09:52:09 pm Ed Murphy wrote: >> Wooble is lynched. (E was a villager.) > > Whoops. > > I transfer all my Coins to ehird (I think this is ^354) as an obvious > bribe not to kill me tonight. I should join this game. --Warrigal
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Wooble, Taral, harblcat
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I intend, with the support of Taral and harblcat, to cause the panel > to send the following message: Maybe you should intend to do it with the support of harblcat and Murphy instead. --Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: roses
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1 Dec 2008, at 13:14, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> That reminds me. I intend, with 2 support, to initiate a criminal >> case alleging that ehird violated R1742 by taking actions e knew would >> lead to P99 violating R2144 by registering with the same basis as >> another player, specifically, agreeing to be a party to such a >> contract with no other purpose than to register with the same basis as >> 99 other contracts. P99's obligation to follow the rules must be >> devolved onto ehird. > > I support. Go ahead and EXILE me, then. We're not planning on EXILE-ing first-class players for violating Rule 2144, are we? --Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] pointless elections
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Probably you can ratify people out of contracts, but I'm not sure if you > can ratify them into them. Not without their explicit, willful consent, you can't. Staying quiet isn't explicit enough, especially if you're not aware that Agora exists (no ratifying Hillary Rodham Clinton into a contract). --Warrigal
DIS: Re: BUS: Anti-scam proposals
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Proposal: Get back here! > (AI = 2, please) > > Create a rule titled "Extradition" with this text: > > As soon as possible after the creation of this rule, ehird > (i.e. the player generally known by that nickname during > November 2008) SHALL join the Vote Market. Upon eir doing > so, this rule repeals itself. You can't do that without taking precedence over rule 101, and you can't do that without amending something. --Warrigal
DIS: Proto: Trademarks
I (do not) submit the following proposal, titled "Trademarks":
{Enact power-1 rule, titled "Trademarks":
{The Censor is a low-priority office. Trademark status is a phrase
switch, tracked by the Censor, with values free (default), live, and
dead. A phrase whose trademark status is live is a trademark. Owner is
a trademark switch, tracked by the Censor, with values of all persons,
defaulting to Hillary Rodham Clinton. Any person CAN trademark a
phrase whose trademark status is free by announcement, but SHALL NOT
do so unless it is not generally used to refer to an existing concept;
this causes the person to become the owner of the trademark. Upon a
judicial finding that a phrase was trademarked illegally, the phrase's
trademark status becomes dead.
A person SHALL NOT use a trademark in reference to an entity in a
public message without its owner's permission, explicit or implicit,
unless e reasonably believes the phrase was trademarked illegally, or
the public message contains a disclaimer stating that the trademark's
owner's permission may not have been obtained. Implicit permission to
use a trademark in reference to an entity exists wherever a reasonable
person would conclude that the trademark's owner would probably give
permission if asked. Also, failure to make a reasonable effort to
prevent a trademark from being used in a certain manner constitutes
implicit permission that cannot be withdrawn.}}
--Warrigal
Re: DIS: Proto: Trademarks
Suggested changes by woggle:
Trademarks belong to contracts
Trademarks must be filed without 3 objections (or with 2 support)
What a trademark can be used in reference to must be explicitly stated
Limit on number of trademarks in a time period
"Filing fee" to discourage pointless trademarking
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I (do not) submit the following proposal, titled "Trademarks":
>
> {Enact power-1 rule, titled "Trademarks":
>
> {The Censor is a low-priority office. Trademark status is a phrase
> switch, tracked by the Censor, with values free (default), live, and
> dead. A phrase whose trademark status is live is a trademark. Owner is
> a trademark switch, tracked by the Censor, with values of all persons,
> defaulting to Hillary Rodham Clinton. Any person CAN trademark a
> phrase whose trademark status is free by announcement, but SHALL NOT
> do so unless it is not generally used to refer to an existing concept;
> this causes the person to become the owner of the trademark. Upon a
> judicial finding that a phrase was trademarked illegally, the phrase's
> trademark status becomes dead.
>
> A person SHALL NOT use a trademark in reference to an entity in a
> public message without its owner's permission, explicit or implicit,
> unless e reasonably believes the phrase was trademarked illegally, or
> the public message contains a disclaimer stating that the trademark's
> owner's permission may not have been obtained. Implicit permission to
> use a trademark in reference to an entity exists wherever a reasonable
> person would conclude that the trademark's owner would probably give
> permission if asked. Also, failure to make a reasonable effort to
> prevent a trademark from being used in a certain manner constitutes
> implicit permission that cannot be withdrawn.}}
>
> --Warrigal
>
Re: DIS: Proto: Trademarks
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:19 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not sure I see a point to any trademarking at all. In the real > world, exclusivity rights to trademarks exist to prevent businesses > from confusing consumers by marketing goods and services that appear > to be marketing by another more reputable competitor. Trademarks could be used as a mark of quality, though I don't think I actually know of anything whose quality we need to mark. Somebody will come up with something. Trademarks could also be used as trophies. If people didn't like trophies, they wouldn't be playing a game. > Forbidding > players from using a certain phrase to refer to a certain thing has > the opposite effect; it would make it hard to refer to things at all > if everyone needs to use an alternate name. Well, it's not like I could effectively trademark a common word or phrase, like "TTPF"; the trademark would be illegal (people generally use TTPF with a certain meaning to it). Maybe the implicit consent things should be strengthened to state that if one person can refer to a certain thing with a trademark, everyone can. > Also, if the first sentence of R754 serves any purpose at all (which > some people recently have been demanding that any sentence in the > rules must do; I'm waiting for someone to claim there's an implied > game action of moving around the map since the map's in the rules and > it must do something), this proposed rule would need to be at Power 3 > as it directly forbids the sort of regularity of communication that's > essential for the healthy function of the nomic. One disclaimer can allow the rest of the message to say whatever it wants. Perhaps the rule can be worded such that the only illegal uses of a trademark are things that can be considered falsehoods. --Warrigal
DIS: Re: BUS: Music & Props
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:02 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I spend Ab B Eb to decrease Warrigal's caste to Savage. > > I transfer a prop from Warrigal to 0x44 for putting em at the end of > the List in eir pledge. Well, someone had to go there. --Warrigal the Democratic Voter
Re: DIS: Proto: Trademarks
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:34 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> One disclaimer can allow the rest of the message to say whatever it >> wants. Perhaps the rule can be worded such that the only illegal uses >> of a trademark are things that can be considered falsehoods. > > Knowingly posting falsehoods TTPF with the intent to deceive is illegal. Banning it would be redundant, you're saying? I think I like that. On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:38 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:19 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> this proposed rule would need to be at Power 3 >> as it directly forbids the sort of regularity of communication that's >> essential for the healthy function of the nomic. > > Did you just say that a relative clause claiming that something is > necessary for the health of something else has an effect besides > clarifying the remainder of the sentence it's in? > > I see what you did there. Well, it is restrictive. A lot like saying "I kicked the fence that is red" when there is also a green fence. --Warrigal
DIS: Re: BUS: Bad Murphy!
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I object to the termination of Warrigal's Grand Poobah pledge. Thank you. --Warrigal "I Think"
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Grand Poobah election, short Notary election.
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 7:40 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Warrigal, I suggest amending your pledge to include reversing The List > after each round of caste changes. OscarMeyr and similar people, would you object if I tried to amend my pledge this way? --Warrigal
DIS: Re: BUS: Agora already has trademarks
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 4:29 AM, Charles Schaefer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/12/5, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I agree to the following: {This is a public pledge known as "Youth".
>> Any person CAN join this contract by announcement if and only if they
>> were born after February 14, 1984. Any party to this contract CAN
>> leave this contract by announcement. Parties to this contract are
>> known as Embrits.}
>
> If I can, I join the above contract.
>
> I can't wait to see how Agora handles this one. CFJ?
I imagine this is comparable to saying "If I am wearing a hat, I
deregister." Since we (I, at least) don't actually know if you were
born after February 14, 1984, this fails.
--Warrigal
