DIS: Re: BUS: Pime Taradox
Elliott Hird wrote: I CFJ on the statement Warrigal is a party to the Wormhole. UNDETERMINED seems eminently appropriate. Though I'd be tempted to plump for FALSE, on the grounds that the Riemann hypothesis is true (go ahead, prove me wrong). OTOH, given that we all know that the truth of the Riemann hypothesis is undetermined, maybe the action just fails for lack of clarity. -zefram
Re: DIS: the Quantum Crisis
Ed Murphy wrote: The proposal in question repealed points, and enacted Marks which were used for officer salaries and such. Marks already existed, and IIRC by this point they were already used quite a lot. The proposal (2662) merely repealed Points. Zefram [2] spent a few months working out different possible gamestates The crisis only lasted a couple of weeks. I issued reports on the possible range of officeholders every couple of days during that time. I also spent a few hours one day trawling through months of mail archive to significantly narrow down who might hold the key offices. (My initial reports started from the conservative position that any player might hold any office.) I never attempted to track currency holdings, and therefore we never knew which proposals in the interim had passed. So some Rules were in an indeterminate state, in addition to Wins and offices. There was even some uncertainty (resolved by archive trawling) about who was registered. My final report on the game state uncertainty said |Registrations of former Players are only maybe-successful at the moment |-- Rule 1043 referred to Game ends rather than months until Proposal |2697, on October 10th, and the passage of that Proposal is in question, |so registrations might still depend on Game ends (about which we know |precisely nothing). Transitions On and Off Hold, and registrations of |new Players (or former Players continuously deregistered since before |the last Game end prior to September) are OK. * X and Y then processed a proposal to the effect of the earlier proposal is legally deemed to have been adopted, regardless of all other factors. There were two proposals. We had a form of ratification back then called a Vote Of Confidence. This could only be performed by proposal, and would not affect the Rules. So we had a VOC at AI=1 and a special-purpose proposal at AI=3.1 to fix the Rules. [2] Which places this some time in 1996 or 1997; I was in the final year of university, which narrows it down to the range 1996-10/1997-08. The RCS log for the quantum report shows the first version checked in (probably not the first report issued) on 1997-02-08, and the final report on 1997-02-13. [3] Eir interim updates generally had subjects like Quantum Report, hence the popular name of the crisis. I used some quantum terminology too, speaking of collapsing the wave function. The same concepts apply to any crisis involving uncertainty about the true game state, so I dislike using the term to identify this one in particular. I think of it as the Proposal 2662 Crisis. Admittedly, the extent of uncertainty in this crisis was unusually great. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: Last resort
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. So, I'm starting a new game of nomic! Here are the rules: These rules are, of course, not the rules of Agora, to which CFJ 24 refers. 4. ehird can create rules in Agora, This mechanism is trivially ineffective in Agora, because nothing in Agora gives effect to the rules of your nomic. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Last resort
Elliott Hird wrote: perhaps we should platonically declare that all nomics are Protectorates? We could, but it doesn't seem very useful. Nothing in the laws of physics gives effect to the rules of Agora. Agora doesn't need the approval of the laws of physics. Agora is sovereign. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: Dictatorship
Elliott Hird wrote:
ehird Without objection I intend to ratify the following report
Patent rubbish.
I add a rule titled blah, power=3, number=9997: {Upon the adoption
of this rule rule is hereby repealed, then this rule is hereby
repealed.}
If this were to work, then the FLRs that you ratified preclude the
existence of any rules that you didn't list, so the only rule in existence
now would be R9998.
-zefram
Re: DIS: Smallest nomic
Kerim Aydin wrote: 1. All rules are amendable, but some are more amendable than others. How can the second part self-execute? -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Left in a Huff
Ed Murphy wrote: (f) Left in a Huff, to be awarded by the Clerk of the Courts or the Registrar (whichever one gets around to it first) to any player who deregistered in a Writ of FAGE. So everyone who so deregistered now has to have this title awarded again? And then again, because they still deregistered (in the past). Either that or it can't be awarded at all until the person who left comes back, because immediately after deregistration e's not a player and so doesn't qualify as any player who -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: [s-b]: Export
ais523 wrote: I submit a proposal, with the title Export, Is this the first (attempted) transfer of rule text between email nomics? Seems like a momentous occasion. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5764-5764
ehird wrote: Don't be so sure... Is that a threat to falsify your log? -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5764-5764
ehird wrote: No... because you actually said that you came off hold. Yes, I did. I was mistaken about what you were saying don't be so sure about. Sorry. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Happy Birthday!
ais523 wrote: Well, I think it's pretty uncontroversially a date stamp, I controvert it. It was not stamped on the message, in the usual meaning of the term. It was not added as part of a regular process, nor in a manner that would be expected to normally give an accurate record of the current date. The scam itself fails for all sorts of reasons Not least because you, er, didn't actually send the message in 1993. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Happy Birthday!
Ian Kelly wrote: Thorny part: the time of day is not part of the date It is if you're dealing with timezones. Our date stamps have resolution finer than one day; I see no contradiction here. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Happy Birthday!
comex wrote: I wish ehird had tried that. E would have sent the message before eir birth. Woo, we have a player younger than the game? Now Agora's really grown up. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: Tradition, by
Kerim Aydin wrote: This I the a CFJ. statement: is on CFJ Not an obvious transformation from plain English, so not a reasonable synonym for anything. Random shuffling of words is a patently unreasonable form of communication. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The first game
comex wrote: Are we in the first game, or the (number of game wins + 1)th game? The way Agora has been structured since ?1995, there is no Nth game, we're in just the game. The phrase the first game, in the context of R104, has a special meaning, though: it refers to the period from the inception of Agora until the first win. That's an historical usage, based on the game structure that existed at the time. -zefram
Re: DIS: Draft FLR(,v)
comex wrote:
Anyone have the script for FLR--SLR?
Attached.
-zefram
#!/usr/bin/perl
use warnings;
use strict;
use IO::Handle;
{
my $peeked_line;
sub peekline() {
unless(defined $peeked_line) {
local $/ = \n;
$peeked_line = STDIN-getline;
die hit EOF unexpectedly unless defined $peeked_line;
die incomplete line unless $peeked_line =~ /\n\z/;
}
return $peeked_line;
}
sub getline() {
my $line = peekline();
$peeked_line = undef;
return $line;
}
}
getline eq THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET\n or die;
print THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET\n;
until(peekline =~ /\A---/) {
print getline;
}
getline until peekline =~ /\A===/;
CATEGORY: while(1) {
print getline, getline;
getline until peekline =~ /\A---/;
print getline;
while(1) {
die unless getline eq \n;
if(peekline =~ /\A===/) {
print \n;
next CATEGORY;
}
last CATEGORY unless peekline =~
m#\ARule (\d+)/(\d+) \(Power=(\d(?:\.\d+)?)\)\n\z#;
print \n, getline, getline;
die unless getline eq \n;
my $had_any_text = 0;
my $had_non_text = 0;
while(1) {
last if peekline =~ /\A---/;
my $para = ;
$para .= getline while peekline ne \n;
getline;
if($para =~ /\A /) {
die if $had_non_text;
$had_any_text = 1;
print \n, $para;
} elsif($para =~ /\ACFJ /) {
$had_non_text = 1;
print \n, $para;
} elsif($para =~ /\A\[|\AHistory:/) {
$had_non_text = 1;
} else {
die;
}
}
die unless $had_any_text;
print \n, getline;
}
}
die unless peekline eq END OF THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET\n;
print \nEND OF THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET\n;
die if defined STDIN-getline;
exit 0;
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Werewolves has been stalled for nearly a month
Ed Murphy wrote: Aha, this was ineffective due to being sent during the discussion period; Grumble. Why did you say I need votes when votes weren't actually valid? -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Werewolves has been stalled for nearly a month
Ed Murphy wrote: If you have a record of voting to lynch Pavitra, then please re-send it and I'll announce corrected results. |Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:02:13 +0100 |From: Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] |To: Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Werewolves update |Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | |Ed Murphy wrote: |Right, then I need votes from root, Zefram, ehird, comex, and Quazie. | |I vote to lynch Pavitra. | |-zefram -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2081-85 assigned to OscarMeyr
Elliott Hird wrote: This is an utterly preposterous judgement, as I was assisting in Goethe's demonstration that failing speech acts were not illegal. It was not a threat in any shape or form. I concur that it was not a threat, but also note that threats to kill do not violate the rules anyway. It was a deliberately false statement, and that *does* violate the rules. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2052 assigned to woggle
Charles Reiss wrote: Also, there should be a strong presumption that excersizing R101 rights is equitable in order to avoid abridging those rights in an equity judgment. Aha, finally some judicial precedent on what R101 rights mean. An excellent principle. -zefram
Re: DIS: Proto-Proposal: Clarify REMAND vs REASSIGN
Taral wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Clarify REMAND vs REASSIGN
That's not a clarification, it's a shift in the balance between these
two options. I like the balance where it is, and don't have your
objection to gratuitous REASSIGNments.
{Note that these say judgement, not arguments. As worded, neither of
these judgements are appropriate if the panel feels that the judgement
is appropriate but the arguments insufficient.}
Yes, this is also an intentional feature of the rule.
-zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5658-5667
Roger Hicks wrote: Anything about this in particular that I could change to get your vote? I dislike the general concept of a profusion of chambers, so no. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5649-5650
Taral wrote: You have a specific objection? Nothing fundamental. I just want to see more of where the current easy-prosecution system leads, as we gain experience in using it. Restricting the flow of such experience doesn't seem like a good idea right now. I could well be in favour of an identical proposal in a few months. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
Kerim Aydin wrote: [Aside: when something is undefined, therefore ceasing to exist, is a thing which is later redefined under the same name the same thing?] Patent titles retain their identity, though they don't cease to exist when not specifically defined. CFJ 1525. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: Perpetual Violation Machine
ihope wrote: Now, assuming that Ivan Hope is always in violation of this pledge works, I don't think it does. Ivan Hope is not actually contravening any obligation imposed by the pledge, so e is not in violation of it. The quoted clause is just a false statement. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2065a assigned to BobTHJ, Taral, Goethe
Roger Hicks wrote: You're too concerned with the facts of this case. Ah, you're one of those faith-based politicians. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2080 judged TRUE by Murphy
Kerim Aydin wrote: CotC Murphy took it for granted that I CFJ on this statement. self- labeled the whole sentence I CFJ on this statement as a CFJ statement, and that I CFJ on that statement. referenced a quoted I CFJ on this statement. I found it quite clear, in those messages, that that was exactly what was going on. An announcement which includes the statement to be inquired into as required by R591 could apply to a whole sentence, or a clause such as this statement or even just statement. this statement and statement are not statements. We might liberally accept such sentence fragments as statements for CFJ purposes if they are explicitly delimited as the subject of a CFJ, but it is not reasonable to expect them to be treated as statements otherwise. They create no ambiguity as to what the subjects of the CFJ is when there is no explicit delimitation. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Demon Proposals
Kerim Aydin wrote: Zefram, I'm wondering if the abuse modifies your general Proposals should be Free stance Not much. I'm still firmly opposed to requiring payment to submit proposals or get them distributed, and also opposed to tight rate limiting and other artificial restrictions. For the various reasons discussed last year, I remain very much in favour of players being able to propose all their distinct ideas, regardless of in-game political or economic status and without artificial delay, and able to freely propose logically separate ideas for separate votes. tusho's `proposals' don't have much to do with this political ideal. They only constitute one distinct idea. They don't actually propose any changes to the game state, and so on a strict reading of R106 could be disqualified from proposalhood. tusho's political rights (the rights that I perceive, that are behind my Free Proposing position) are not being exercised here and would not be in any way abridged by a process that killed these `proposals'. (tusho is also apparently not a player right now, which also disqualifies them, making this moot. No, I'm not worried about em having lost eir rights by deregistering.) I would not object to a rate limit on proposals, similar to that for CFJs, allowing discretionary rejection beyond perhaps twenty per person per week. The limit should be at the upper end of what an individual can feasibly produce in the way of considered political proposals. since you're the one that (tentatively) has to deal with these. Actually these would be quite easy to process on my side. The consistent structure means I can simply write code to add them to the master proposal data file, and that's the only part of distribution that I normally do by hand. Recording the voting results (for the historical file, not part of my official duties) or withdrawals could be done similarly. I'm more concerned about the inflation of proposal numbers than the actual work involved. A thousand proposals is vastly more than needed to make the point. (The same point regarding CFJs was made with a batch of a hundred, back in ~1997.) And of course they don't need to be actually distributed to fulfill this purpose: the point is made by submission. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: I must be crazy, but...
Kerim Aydin wrote: For the rules to define a class of assets to be a card, the Rules must define its Title, its House, and its Exploit. I think you mean that the *assets* are cards, not that the *class* is a card. I expect the Title, House, and Exploit are attributes of the class, rather than individual assets/cards; better make that clear. Cards are tracked by the Herald. Bad overloading. Create the office of dealor. any such attempted transfer is prima facie assumed to occur. This is garbled. Our ordinary standards of evidence would say that an announcement of a transfer is prima facie evidence that the transfer occurred. If you want a stronger effect than that, you need to be more explicit: perhaps an announcement of transfer is a self-ratifying report that the recipient received the card. House may be one of Major or Minor, and the collection of all cards in a house may be referred to as the Major and Minor Arcana, respectively. Er, what? How many houses are there? Is a house, in fact, an entity in its own right, or is house just the label for a class of switch? Herald SHALL chose the card to be dealt randomly from among choose. The holder of a major Arcana SHOULD also, in general, be treated as if e holds a legal position in Agora equivalent to the title of the card. I find this phrasing a bit unclear. Seeing the rule defining the major arcana clarified it, but then I think it's a bad idea. The card and the position should have distinct names. the announcement, e SHALL return all Major Arcana to the deck CAN e? Repeal Rule 402. You'll have to repeal rule 103 as well to make the speakership behave as a card. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I must be crazy, but...
Kerim Aydin wrote: -One off vetos, rubberstamps, etc. Beware of anything that would provide an incentive to propose in decuplicate. A general power of veto, with no per-use cost, could veto decuplicate proposals just as well as a single proposal. A one-off veto, however, threatens only single proposals. -zefram
Re: DIS: another workaround
Kerim Aydin wrote: I hereby announce that I do X If this is acceptable, it is because we treat it as a (virtual) announcement of I do X. If it is so accepted, for the purposes of doing X by announcement, then R2149 can also be applied to I do X. -zefram
Re: DIS: I say I do, therefore I do
Kerim Aydin wrote: I'm puzzled by the disclaimers issue. If you disclaim an action (those of you who claim that action statements can be false) wouldn't the disclaimer always cause it to fail? You can't have it both ways! I discussed this in an earlier post. A total disclaimer (Any statements made in this message might be false.) certainly should disqualify a statement from operating as an action, because it means that the action hasn't actually been announced. Likewise, such a disclaimer would deprive an official report of validity, so that it wouldn't satisfy the obligation to publish. A qualified disclaimer is a different matter. This attempted action might fail., for example, indicates that the action statement might be false due to impossibility of the action, but does not disclaim any other reason for it to be false. Combining it logically with the action statement, it is effectively a synonym for the qualifier If it is possible to do so,. We do allow these, and they mean that the action occurs if it is possible. I think the qualifier is better style than the disclaimer. -zefram
Re: DIS: I say I do, therefore I do
Elliott Hird wrote: Now, the announcement that performs an action is obviously a statement. But it does not seem to imply that anything is true or false - at a stretch, we can say that it states that the action it purports to perform is successful. That's precisely what it does state! It is a statement that the action described occurs, no more and no less. If the action does not occur then the statement is false. There's something screwy about your wording. You speak of an action being successful or not. This doesn't match my mental model. In my world it is an *attempt* at an action that is successful or not. If the attempt is successful then the action occurs. If the attempt is unsuccessful then the action does not occur. You seem to be taking an action statement to signify an attempt at an action, rather than signifying the action itself. So, if I understand correctly, you see the statement to be (at most) a statement that an attempt is being made to act. That attempt could fail without depriving the statement of truthfulness. I think the rules fit my interpretation, not the one that I have here imputed to you. Something else I find amusing about this situation: you say (if I understand correctly) that action statements lack truth values because the rules ascribe them special significance as actions. But where the rules ascribe such significance, and make the action occur, there is no problem. The problem we have here is with statements that the rules *don't* ascribe any significance to, because they describe impossible actions. The rules don't distinguish between I'm voting FOR proposal 1234. (outside the proposal's voting period) and I'm washing my dog. (when the rules don't define washing or dogs). -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Draft Ruling in CFJ 2023
Taral wrote: Well, the problem is that there's two ways to phrase the CFJ: Back when we started doing criminal CFJs this issue came up. CFJ 1720 decided that by default the rule violated was not part of the action being tried. That was before we required explicit specification of the rule allegedly violated, so it's now pretty clear anyway that the rule number is not part of the action. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PNP Voting
ais523 wrote: Say, this is another argument for allowing attempts to perform actions which will certainly fail; This is a reason for the PNP's message to include a phrase such as if the proposal is in its voting period. Zefram does not update it instantaneously when the voting period ends.) It's not intended to be a list of proposals that are in their voting period, it's a list of *unresolved* proposals. A proposal comes off that list only when its decision has been resolved by the publication of voting results. I don't process *that* instantaneously, for that matter. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ
Ian Kelly wrote: I CFJ on this statement. Patently TRUE. By stating it you do in fact initiate the described CFJ, via the rules on acting by announcement. This makes the statement true. And it's obviously relevant. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: CRIMINAL CASES
comex wrote: - action: claiming to dance in eir message with message-id The term dance has a specialised meaning in the context of Agora, referring to a verbal (rather than kinaesthetic) activity. By that meaning, Goethe did in fact dance in that message. - action: claiming to kill Goethe in eir message with message-id We have no such redefinition of kill. The judge should look for evidence of whether Goethe is still alive, and whether ehird was (at the time of the message) making efforts that e could reasonably expect would lead to cessation of Goethe's life. - action: claiming that the precedent from CFJ 1738 is that speech acts carry truth values That's certainly a reasonable inference from CFJ 1738. A major part of the initiator's arguments, accepted by the judge, is based on an analysis where action announcements have truth values. Whatever the courts eventually rule on this precedent, there's no basis to suppose that root did not honestly believe in this interpretation of CFJ 1738. - action: sending a message with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] in which e did not tell the truth (because e did not say anything) Heh. I see two reasonable ways to analyse this. First: the message contained no statements, so there was no instance of mak[ing] a public statement [without] believ[ing] that in doing so e is telling the truth. Second: taking the message as a whole to be a single statement, it is (by default) the logical conjunction of all the top-level substatements contained within it. Having no substatements, we have the nullary conjunction, which is trivially true. These two analyses are largely equivalent. - action: thinking up statements that will be public although they are not true before e has sent them We have no rules impinging on freedom of thought. - action: making public statements while being silent orally, thereby not telling the truth (or anything) Tell does not imply oral activity. - action: claiming in eir message with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] that e intended to appeal ehird's judgement of CFJ 1932, while in fact he did not intend to appeal it Quite possibly guilty, though tricky to establish unless e confesses. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: CRIMINAL CASES
comex wrote: - rule: 2149 - action: eating cake. R2149 does not regulate gustatory activity. - rule: 2149 - action: claiming that eating cake is a violation of Rule 2149 Ah, finally, a non-trivial issue. We haven't actually established whether the initiation of a criminal CFJ constitutes an unqualified allegation of rule violation. R1504 speaks of an allegation internally, but only as a way to identify the parameters of the case. For the record, I was undecided about this issue when I drafted it. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: This subject is only a subject if it is a subject
Elliott Hird wrote: If the above statement is false, This condition cannot be evaluated by any reasonable effort, so the attempted action is invalid due to unclarity. -zefram
Re: DIS: Proto: But what is truth?
comex wrote: For every other action, If possible I do X and I attempt to do X do not satisfy Rule 478's criterion-- that the person performing the action announces that e performs it-- We have historically allowed quite a bit of latitude in the use of conditionals. It's not codified, but we seem to work under some variant of the reasonable effort criterion. In particular, in crisis situations we've allowed conditionals that can't in practice be resolved at the time but which we expect will be retroactively resolved by CFJ. We treat If possible I do X as a synonym for I do X iff X is in fact possible. If it is impossible we treat it as a nullity. I'm less happy about I attempt to do X, but I'm willing to interpret it as a synonym for If possible I do X. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: But what is truth?
Taral wrote: This means that attempting to take actions that one does not necessarily believe are possible is criminally punishable. Is that really what we want? Yes. If one believes that an action is not possible, then it is dishonest to claim to perform it, such as by attempting to do so without any indication of one's belief. Only the most boring scams would rely on this kind of dishonesty. Actions that are of uncertain legality can always be preceded by If it is possible,. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: But what is truth?
Ed Murphy wrote: A person SHALL NOT make a public statement unless e believes, according to some plausible interpretation of the rules, that in doing so e is telling the truth. I think according to some plausible interpretation of the rules is not helpful here, and will just be grounds for more CFJs. Please be clearer on what you want to require the person to have: 0. actual belief that the statement is true 1. a plausible interpretation of the rules that would make the statement true 2. actual belief in a plausible interpretation as in 1 3. both 0 and 1 4. both 0 and 2 Also consider how much looser plausible is than reasonable, and whether the interpretation must be in the person's mind at the time of making the statement. Real-life law has the concept of reasonable belief, which is somewhat clearer and might be worth importing wholesale. a) A public statement that one performs an action is true if and only if the attempt is successful. You're still overcomplicating this bit, inviting dodgy interpretations, by bringing in emergent concepts that don't belong here. What you need to explicate is how an action statement is evaluated for truthfulness, and it's best written in such terms. How about: A statement that someone is thereby performing an action is false if the described action is not thereby performed. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ruling in CFJ 2053: INNOCENT
Elliott Hird wrote: I'm not sure I _want_ to be registered if something that goes wrong is illegal. R2149 does not forbid mistakes. It forbids lies. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: Can you lie in a speech act?
ais523 wrote: I attempt to ... , but fail. I wonder whether this qualifies for acting by announcement. On the face of it, this was not an announcement that ais523 did something, but rather an announcement that e made a failed attempted to do something. That doesn't meet the requirements of R478, so probably doesn't initiate the CFJ. Then we must consider whether it was an *attempt* to initiate a CFJ (as it claims). This depends on what ais523 thought would happen. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Can you lie in a speech act?
ais523 wrote: Oh, and this little bit of confusion is designed as an exercise to show the absurdity of finding speech acts to be lying. It's not succeeding. I see no such absurdity. Your bizarre message, while of uncertain interpretation, did not challenge my concepts of truthfulness and speech acts. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ruling in CFJ 2053: INNOCENT
Kerim Aydin wrote: If you really want justice, you'd admit the rules are unclear on avatars, and make a rule to wit masquerading as more than one individual is against the Rules. It has occurred to me that the power of R2149 makes the available penalty somewhat inadequate for this particular type of lie. I'd be in favour of a power=3 rule explicitly forbidding lying about one's identity. -zefram
Re: DIS: Proto: But what is truth?
Elliott Hird wrote: This is a fundamentally flawed and dangerous idea and should not pass. What is the nature of the flaw? Does the current R2149 share it? -zefram
Re: DIS: Proto: But what is truth?
ais523 wrote: I would strongly prefer it if rule 2149 was amended the other way, to make failed attempts to perform acts legal As has been repeatedly pointed out, failing attempts at speech actions can still avoid false statements, provided that the statement carries an appropriate qualifier. Formulations such as If possible I do X. and I attempt to do X. have been commonly used in situations where someone is aware of a reason why the action might not be possible, and no objection to this has been raised. In the specific case of registering, I wish to register. will cause registration if it is possible while still being a true statement if it is not possible. Furthermore *inadvertant* failures to act are not proscribed by any past, present, or proposed version of R2149. Reasonable honest errors are legal, and there is no proposal on the table to change that. (e.g. what happens if a contest is decontestified but the contestmaster still has to try to award points). If the contest requires em to *attempt* to award points, e can say If possible, I award 5 points to ais523.. This satisfies the contractual obligation without offending R2149. If the contest requires em to *actually* award points, it is impossible for em to satisfy that obligation, regardless of R2149. I am a roleplayer, among other things, and attempting to perform actions is very distinct from making statements This isn't a roleplaying game, and we don't have avatars. Perhaps more to the point, we don't have a GM who judges the effects of every attempt to act. In a code nomic, the next example you raised, the implementation acts much like a GM for these purposes. Agora is not like those situations. The business of Agora is conducted by free-form speech, and many things are achieved by pure speech acts. We have arranged the rules on this so that the speech that achieves the act is also a correct notification of the act. We have no dictatorial GM, but track the game state cooperatively through these notifications, and so we rightly prohibit dishonesty regarding that state. Speech acts are, in this respect, no different from any other kind of speech. Hmm... I seem to have a veto right now and rule 2149 is power 1. I don't really like using vetos, but now might seem to be a good time. You can't veto the continued existence of the rule as it already is, and no one is proposing a fundamental change to it, so your influence on the legality of speech acts is limited. this be massively against the Agoran Spirit if I try? Would people just try to make it democratic? We don't have any precedent for the use of the current veto prerogative. I believe the veto is historically related to anti-invasion preparations, and for those who remember the wars a veto on internal political grounds might seem abusive. You could make yourself unpopular, especially if you veto routinely, and might perhaps trigger attempts to reduce the prerogative's power. Personally I favour the abolition of all prerogatives, and of the speakerhood. I'm not likely to have much opinion about particular exercises of the prerogatives. -zefram
Re: DIS: Proto: But what is truth?
Taral wrote: A person SHALL not make a public statement e believes to be false. We tried that, in the original version of rule 2149, and eventually rejected it when restoring the rule after the truthiness era. The problem is that a reckless falsehood is still dishonest and problematic. -zefram
Re: DIS: Proto: But what is truth?
Elliott Hird wrote: An announcement is a vessel for performing or trying to perform an action. We announce a lot of things other than actions. An announcement is a vessel for informing players about the game state. A failing action is not an illegal lie. It doesn't have to be, as already pointed out. A deliberately false claim to be performing an action most certainly is a lie, though. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: ?spam? BUS: Spam
ais523 wrote: Well, there's at least one attempt at a scam, but I'm not entirely sure if there is a patent title that may not be In-Ground Pool Cleaners. I think it's not a coherent sentence, because of the interspersed advertising text. Therefore ineffective. The only coherent parts of the message are the large number of CFJs on This is Agora. and the disclaimer in the last line. I think the disclaimer, btw, nullifies any attempts at action by announcement in the message. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ
comex wrote: Reading nonsense is somewhat fun, you should try it. I did. I read the whole message fairly closely, on the grounds that you must be trying to hide something in it. I didn't see any attempt at actions apart from the CFJs. I reckon anything else that you think is in there (such as the patent title bit, which I missed) is sufficiently unclear as to be ineffective. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ
comex wrote: By the way, I had to read the entire third part of my message to make sure it didn't contain any attempts at actions. It contains this, which is somewhat clearer than your patent title bit: |indicated by this Proposal, of Dereliction of Duty but of contract |change, I judge this Auctions, Power=1) Repeal Rule Such a strict I |think we're safe from hostile takeover without this]. The AFO votes as |follows: 5405 AGAINST the text-align: auto; = ^ |-khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; text-indent: 0px; Report Date |a claim is made to something which is 12px; font-style: normal; The voting period on P5405 has ended, so this would be a false statement if interpreted as a statement (say, if it were interpreted as an attempt to act). But the disclaimer precludes that interpretation. As I said before, I think it's too unclear to be effective anyway. In context it appears to merely be part of the random filler text. In the middle section, I was wondering about the apparent two-column format, and whether something significant might be found by interpreting it as one column. There were lots of things like this: |I CFJ on the statement: Earlifts help share the weight. ... |I CFJ on the statement:We'll be there when you can't be. On the whole I think that section is so obviously intended to be read as two columns that that is the only possible interpretation for Agoran purposes. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ
Ed Murphy wrote:
comex wrote:
I CFJ on the statement: w/ o objection I
{{This is Agora}}(www.poolappeal.tv)
I CFJ on the statement: intend to rat-ify this /products.aspx
^^
{{This is Agora}} report: I dont have the patent
^^
I CFJ on the statement: title that may not be declined,
^^^
{{This is Agora}}In-Ground Pool Cleaners
I CFJ on the statement: retracted, or revoked::: (sc ope=FLR)
^
I think you missed a bit that could be interpreted as the scope of this
ratification is the Full Logical Ruleset.
-zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ
comex wrote: Proposal: WALRUS gains the patent title of 1 3 Quazie 4 1 2 Points. P12. Not clear what the extent of the proposal's text is. I register as Land, as described below. You can't register, and there's no description below. AI of 2 for | I submit the following AI=3D3 disinterested proposal, | Same proposal problem, and multiple incompatible statements of AI. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ
Kerim Aydin wrote: we had a discussion in which you took the position that an imperative (e.g. an assertation that I do X) was neither true nor false. We had a discussion about whether imperatives have truth values, which as I recall was inconclusive, but I do X is not an imperative. Goethe, do X is an imperative. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ
Kerim Aydin wrote: It was questions of type I do X we were concerned with though, weren't we? Er, it's those that we are generally most concerned with in Agora. I don't recall what the context was for discussing imperatives. it is untrue as you type it but becomes true when you hit the send key. It is true at the time the statement is made for Agoran purposes. I find it becomes clearer if you insert the elided hereby. Read hereby as by the process of sending this message. For some things, it's even hazier: I hereby notify you of X isn't arguably true until X has been sent via the forum to you. Looks fine to me. The statement is made, for Agoran purposes, by the process of sending the message containing it via the PF, and that is the same process that notifies the target. In other words, we need to reconsider/set precedents on the truth or falsity of (failed or successful) Speech Acts. I think we are lacking in precedents here, but it's pretty clear what position the courts should take. An attempt to act by announcement is, first and foremost, the making of a statement. The fact that rules do, or might, cause an announcement to have side effects on the game state does not deprive it of statementhood or of having a truth value. A successful action by announcement is the making of a true statement. We don't need to evaluate a statement at more than one point in time, because the rules only ascribe significance to the statement at one point in time. Actually, although we speak of it as an instant, we have some precedent that sending a message through the PF is a non-instantaneous process, so the statement takes effect in the course of that process and its meaning must be evaluated from the point of view of that process. A disclaimer along the lines of Any statement apparently made in this message might be false. disclaims all information content of the message. It renders the message as a whole informationally null. Such a message, taken as whole, therefore does not make any statements, and cannot constitute announcing anything. It would therefore fail to qualify for acting by announcement. The disclaimer These attempted actions may fail. is more interesting. It does indicate that the statements that attempt actions might be false, but it does so in a qualified way. They can't be false for arbitrary reasons. The disclaimer indicates specifically that they may be false purely due to the described action being impossible. It does not disclaim any other way in which they could be false. So I think this disclaimer does allow attempted actions to take effect, where the actions are possible, and avoids the message constituting a lie where they are not. An attempted action of I hereby spend my two C notes to cause Murphy to gain a C note. would still be a lie, under that disclaimer, if I didn't have exactly two C notes, so that the phrase my two C notes has no valid referent. Btw, I think the formulation If possible, I do X. is preferable over I do X. Disclaimer: this might fail.. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Enough misuse of criminality for contracts
Kerim Aydin wrote: The above double-submission may be, er, recursive or difficult. I took the proposal body to be delimited by the lines of dashes, and was not troubled by the redundant statement of submission. I note, however, that you are continuing your habit of repeating the proposal's title at the beginning of its body. -zefram
Re: DIS: Proto: Truth of speech acts
Ed Murphy wrote: a) An attempted speech act is equivalent to a claim that the person will perform the action by sending the message. I think this muddies things. You're relying on the common understanding of attempted speech act, but that's an emergent concept some way removed from the relevant rules. Meanwhile you're trying to establish a very basic aspect of the interpretation of statements. It's an abstraction inversion. How about: A statement that the speaker is performing an action by means of a public message can be true or false as for any other kind of statement, and in particular it is false if the speaker does not thereby successfully perform the action described. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: The Game
Elliott Hird wrote: If a Gamer thinks about The Game (as this contract or the real-life version or just the words 'The Game'), they lose and must announce their loss to a public forum. I'm immune. xkcd set me free: http://xkcd.com/391/ -zefram
Re: DIS: New FINE Proto
Sgeo wrote: Can the judge really be trusted to specify an arbitrary amount? Can the judge be trusted to specify an arbitrary currency? It may be impossible for the ninny to acquire it. To avoid these problems, perhaps the fine should be limited to currency that the ninny has owned at some point since the CFJ was initiated. -zefram
Re: DIS: New FINE Proto
Roger Hicks wrote: I would exclude any assets from destruction which are part of a zero-sum system (none at the moment as far as I am aware, but just in case). Also, I think it needs to be CAN and SHALL instead of SHALL to override contracts which don't permit the voluntary destruction of their assets. I think there should not be any extra capability here. If a contract doesn't allow voluntary destruction then this should not be a valid subject for a fine. Don't break zero-sum currencies, and in general don't break how particular currencies are designed. You could allow fining by transferring currency to the LFD in lieu of destruction. That would make more currencies available for fines. -zefram
Re: DIS: Proto: No, Mr. Garrison, we cannot get rid of all the Mexicans
Ed Murphy wrote: (English is Agora's lingua franca; non-English speakers will require a translation service to participate in a practical sense.) A non-English speaker plus translation service probably meets the existing definition of person. We should clarify that, rather than dropping the English requirement. -zefram
Re: DIS: Proto: No, Mr. Garrison, we cannot get rid of all the Mexicans
Geoffrey Spear wrote: If the translation service isn't of a biological nature, is the union of the two a first-class person? I can't send email without a keyboard. Is me+keyboard a first-class person? -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: Equity case: PNP
ais523 wrote: However, given the PNP's stated method of acting, it might be quite difficult to return the chits; it would require amending the contract with support from all its members, ... which can be manifested by a contract between all the members, such as an equation regarding the PNP. -zefram
Re: DIS: 5629-5630
comex wrote: Preparing for ostracism and One-off ostracism were protos sent to the discussion forum. Proposals 5629-5630 are not by me, but were created by Zefram's act of distribution. Oops. Noted in historical record. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2048 judged UNIMPUGNED by Taral
Taral wrote: required to show that the accused did not believe eir statement to be true. I thought that side of the case was uncontroversial. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Werewolves update
Ben Caplan wrote: This strikes me as not within the spirit of the game of Werewolf. Wolves need to be able to lie with impunity. See who fears information getting out. I propose to lynch Pavitra. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Magenta! Columbia!
Ben Caplan wrote: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 23:12:23 -0500 http://www.timezoneconverter.com/cgi-bin/tzc.tzc thinks that the time as I write this is 04:10 Jun 30 (UTC) or 16:10 Jun 29 (GMT +12). That's wrong. The time according to your Date header is 2008-06-29 23:12:23 in UTC-5h, which is 2008-06-30 04:12:23 in UTC, which is 2008-06-30 16:12:23 in UTC+12h, which is firmly inside Agora's Birthday. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: I thought Agora's Birthday was today...
Alexander Smith wrote: Happy Birthday, Agora! Late. Doesn't +1200 push it from midday on the 30th to midday on the 1st? The +12:00 means that it occurs 12 hours earlier than that date occurs in UTC. -zefram
DIS: Re: Re: BUS: I thought Agora's Birthday was today...
Alexander Smith wrote: Well, in that case, I publically state that I did not have Internet access during Agora's Birthday. This prevented me from participating in the fora So your personal circumstances have abridged your R101 right. How naughty of them. Of course, that's not a binding agreement or interpretation of Agoran law, so R101 does not forbid it from abridging your rights. -zefram
Re: DIS: Proto Proposals galore!
Quazie wrote: Proposal - 'Capitol 1' - AI = 1, II=0 We're moving away from Capitalising Important Words. I'd favour lowercasing some of the existing capitalised words. Proposal 'Non-newbies deserve Ribbons' AI =2 ii = 1 I think white ribbons should not be available to new players, only to mentors. But this is the other way to equalise their availability. Proposal 'Excess proposals' AI=2 ii = 1 ... week may be deemed an Excess Proposal by the Promotor. An Excess Should be ... may be removed from the proposal pool by the promotor by announcement.. Specify mechanism, and avoid deeming. Proposal 'Homo sapiens' AI=3 ii=0 We're not speciesist here. We have precedent for a blob of (biological) mauve goo being a player. Also, you spelled the binomial name correctly in the title but not in the body of the proposal. The specific epithet is never capitalised. -zefram
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Protoproposal of a defense of democracy
Quazie wrote: Proposal 'Another bribe?' AI=2 ii=1 Been done before. Boring. -zefram
Re: DIS: Proto Proposals galore!
Quazie wrote: This is just to ensure that dead humans can be considered people if they need to be. But they're not people. They have no social personality and no capacity to act on their own behalf. They should correspondingly have no legal personality. It's vitally important that we recognise that they're not valid subjects of duties. (Actually, in Western culture, a human who has just died is still *socially* treated as a person until the funeral. The funeral is what changes the deceased's status from a dead person (Mr Smith, who has just died) to an ex-person (the late Mr Smith). Nevertheless, *legal* personhood terminates with death.) We've never had a first-class player die, at least that we know of. (We may have processed some under the abandonment rules.) If one did, we'd probably have to pass a one-off proposal to deregister em promptly. The last paragraph of R869 deliberately doesn't allow deregistration of anyone who has been first-class, to avoid problems with potential scams or screwups that withdraw legal personhood from first-class players. -zefram
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Protoproposal of a defense of democracy
Quazie wrote: I was just surprised to find that Bribing wasn't illegal, thats all, so I decided to see what would happen. Precedent is that it gets voted down. The *first* bribery attempt of a novel type generally succeeds, but reiterations are frowned upon. (Your prisoners' dilemma proposal might be sufficiently novel to garner interest, but the other two have been done before.) -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: I think.
comex wrote: And I also nominate ZEFRAM, because coming out of the blue to nominate Pavrita is... a little suspicious. Damn, rumbled. Yep, I'm a werewolf. In fact, I'm both werewolves. Pavitra gave sufficient reason to suspect em of lupine tendencies. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: registration
Elliott Hird wrote: You're a player, which is more than I can say. Er, you just did say it. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PRS
Elliott Hird wrote: why? I have a problem with the laundering concept of the PRS. It should not be granted the ability to award points. Points should only be awarded for generally-approved subgames, but the PRS would open the way for anything to grant points. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5577-5584
Elliott Hird wrote: 5577 O1 1comex I don't deserve Scamster! AGAINSTx4 You can't vote on these proposals. Here's part of the distribution message that you didn't quote: | The eligible voters for ordinary |proposals are the active players, the eligible voters for democratic |proposals are the active first-class players, -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5569-5576
Taral wrote: AGAINSTx11 (can power-1 proposals register people?) Yes, but it's not clear that this one would. If it said ehird is hereby registered. then it certainly would have the effect of registering em. What it actually says is ehird registers., which expands to ehird registers emself.. Rule 869 provides the procedure whereby a person can register emself, and the adoption of a proposal patently isn't it. So I think that this proposal, if adopted, would be merely making a false statement, and would have no effect. -zefram
Re: DIS: player, person question
Quazie wrote: Where does it say in the rules that a person can't be more than one player? It has long been customary that the player *is* the person. Playerhood is an attribute of persons (actually, also of non-persons now); the player is not a separate entity (an avatar). We had a very old CFJ decision along the lines of if a player deregisters, and the person then registers again, e is the same player that e was before. More recently the rules have been explicitly written to allow only this interpretation. Currently, R869: Citizenship is an entity switch with values Unregistered (default) and Registered, tracked by the registrar. A player is an entity whose citizenship is Registered. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ruling on CFJ 2019
Kerim Aydin wrote: I support this. In addition to Quazie's comment above, the very definition of Patent Title (r649) is a legal item given in recognition of a *person's* distinction so I question the judge's assertion that Patent Titles are not limited to persons. We had a judicial decision at one point that only persons could bear patent titles. We then amended R649 specifically to change that. A patent title is *given* in recognition of a person's distinction, but *bearing* it is not tied to personhood. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract cleanup
Elliott Hird wrote: I'll object, just to be silly. Go on then. -zefram
Re: DIS: Notary (proto-)report: Now in delicious colou^H^H^H^H^HHTML!
Elliott Hird wrote: If you click that in a web browser, you'll get a nice HTMLCSS version of the Notary proto-report. ... Anyway, yeah. Oh, and if you're using IE the HTML version will probably be cacophonic. Why do people keep thinking that HTML documents must come with their own fancy formatting? People forget what the T stands for. If you just write text with structural markup, as HTML was originally designed to do, then pretty much every browser manages to render it legibly. Readers can even (shock, horror) have it formatted the way *they* prefer, for reading, rather than how the document *author* prefers to read it. Your base.css also commits the cardinal sin of setting a foreground colour (for anchors) without also setting the corresponding background colour. Your foreground and an arbitrary reader's default background don't necessarily make a visible contrast. By the way, if you have an Accept header preferring text/plain over text/html, you'll get the text version back. Cute. Turns out Lynx rates them equally, and you're sending text/plain in that case. -zefram
Re: DIS: Voting questions
Alexander Smith wrote: Zefram, avpx, why did you vote AGAINST ? Should be in the rule that defines by announcement. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: pseudo-Herald's report
Kerim Aydin wrote: LONG SERVICE AWARDS Three Months: Goddess Eris, Goethe, Sherlock, Michael, Murphy, OscarMeyr, root Six Months: Michael, Murphy, OscarMeyr, root, Sherlock, Goethe Nine Months:Michael, Murphy, OscarMeyr, root, Goethe Twelve Months: Michael, Murphy, OscarMeyr, root, Goethe I have some of these. All of them, I think. -zefram
Re: DIS: New Forum?
Kerim Aydin wrote: Would you consider the creation of a new discussion forum, the Agora-Contests (or -Contracts) forum? Most of us would have to be on it, and would be uninterested in most of the traffic. I think there should be separate fora for each contest. -zefram
Re: DIS: Proto: Emergency exit
ihope wrote: What is ISIDTID? I say I do, therefore I do. The cause of much philosophical debate regarding actions that are defined only by the rules. -zefram
Re: DIS: 1st proposal
Chester Mealer wrote: (g) Official Greeter, to be awarded by the IADoP, to any player who announces eir intent to become a greeter with Agoran consent (ratio 1). Why do it as a patent title when we have an office mechanism? -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Transposition
Ian Kelly wrote: What ever happened to this proposal? I lost it. Crap. It'll be in the next batch. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Isn't that just silly?
Elliott Hird wrote: I perform every action that can be performed by announcement. This has been tried before, by KoJen IIRC. E used the modifier simultaneously too. It was generally regarded as a null action, presumably due to ambiguity and unreasonableness. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: The ehird Project (which would be The Ehird Project if...)
ihope wrote: This contract purports to regulate becoming a party to it. No it doesn't. It *purports* to purport to regulate it, but doesn't actually purport to regulate it. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Isn't that just silly?
Ian Kelly wrote: Ooh, really? Learn something new every day... Yes, or there's an alternative term betagam. An alphabet (named for alpha and beta, the first two letters of Greek) represents both consonants and vowels. A symbolic system that represents only consonants, such as Hebrew, should logically therefore be named after the first two consonants of Greek. Alphabets and abjads can also be contrasted with abugidas (which represent consonants as base symbols but have mandatory diacritics to represent vowels) and syllaberies (which represent whole syllables as single symbols). These can be collectively distinguished from logographic, ideographic, and pictographic systems, where a single symbol represents a much larger component of meaning. -zefram
Re: DIS: Proposal idea
Nick Vanderweit wrote: So should I just write up a proto-proposal for an ordinary linear numerical system of currency with the proposed ideas (transfer tax, etc)? We already have currencies. We don't need a new one, and they're easy to create if we do find a need for one. What you need to do is find a fungible, mostly-conserved, scarce quantity that can be represented by a currency. Since we don't deal in physical goods, scarce resource types are thin on the ground. Voting clout is the only fungible scarce resource that we've positively identified so far; notes (and VCs before them) are essentially a derivative of that. Work on administration or legislation is not fungible, so there's little scope for currency there. If you want to mix logarithms with currency, the way to go is exponential pricing. We've experimented before with arrangements where N extra votes on a proposal cost 2^N currency units. The currency itself is still linear, of course. There's room for quite a lot of nonlinearity in how currencies influence voting clout, because the latter isn't properly additive: clout is relative, and one gains a greater share of it only at the expense of someone else's share. I ranted quite a bit about intra-nomic economics back in early 2007. Check the archives. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AGORA AGORA AGORA AGORA
Geoffrey Spear wrote: How confident are we that MD5 doesn't have collisions between FOR.$somehash and AGAINST.$someotherhash? It does inherently have collisions, and there's a known attack that has demonstrated actual instances of collision (though not with meaningful strings yet). The next generation of hash algorithms should arrive in the next year or so. Until then, attacks can be practically deterred by using SHA-512. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1985 assigned to Pavitra
Ben Caplan wrote: Ah, interesting. If R1868 finds it necessary to spell it out, then (exceptio probat regulam) have is equal to come to have elsewhere. Yes? No. It's explicitly stated in R1868 because otherwise some people would have got confused about it. It would still mean the same thing without the clarification. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Rules as Contract
Ed Murphy wrote: Proto-Proposal: Rules as Contract (AI = 3, II = 2, please) ... A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern the game generally. This is essentially the current equivalent of the Suber R101. This is the claim that the rules are sovereign. The rules as a whole are a contract that CANNOT be terminated, And this seems to contradict it. A contract is binding only on its parties, and does not have the capacity to (for example) proscribe the wearing of hats by non-parties. Semi-players are non-players who act with the clear intent of influencing the gamestate. Nice criterion. I think with this you don't need to separately handle players: requesting registration involves clear intent to influence the game state. The jurisdiction of the rules over non-participants is limited to defining portions of the gamestate relevant to them, including the revocation of their privileges. I'm not clear on what this means. I think the bit about the rules being a contract, and being binding on participants, needs to come first. After that, the existing bit about capacity to govern the game generally can be used, with explicit reference to the restriction on jurisdiction that comes from the contract nature of the rules. I think the capacity to govern paragraph should probably stay with the rules have ID numbers and other text. The whole of the present R2141 is about individual rules, whereas the new rule text you want to add is about the ruleset as a whole. I think that's a better division than the role vs attributes division that you're trying to do. How about, say: Enact a new power=3 rule, titled Role of the Ruleset, with text: The ruleset as a whole is a contract, and its parties are known as participants. This contract CANNOT be terminated, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. The ruleset consists of all the rules that currently exist. Changes to the set of parties to the ruleset are secured. The proposal, fora, and registration processes are, prima facie, considered protective of a participant's rights and privileges with respect to making and changing the rules and the agreement to be bound by them. Any non-participant who acts with the clear intent of influencing the game state thereby becomes a participant. Any participant CAN and MAY cease to be a participant by publicly renouncing participation in the game. Any participant who has not acted with the clear intent of influencing the game state at any time within the preceding three months CAN have eir participanthood removed by any person by announcement. The ruleset CANNOT bind non-participants, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. Append to rule 869 the new paragraph: If there is ever a player who is not a participant, e immediately ceases to be a player. If the cessation of participation was voluntary, e then CANNOT register within the next thirty days. Delete from rule 2130 the paragraph containing the words CAN be deregistered. Amend the first paragraph of rule 2141 to read: A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern the game generally, subject only to the overall restrictions on the capacity of the ruleset. A rule's content takes the form of a text, and is unlimited in scope. In particular, a rule may define in-game entities and regulate their behaviour, make instantaneous changes to the state of in-game entities, prescribe or proscribe certain participant behaviour, modify the rules or the application thereof, or do any of these things in a conditional manner. the judgement is in effect as a new binding agreement between the parties, descending directly from the original contract and acting in conjunction with it. Nice approach. I think you need a bit more explicitude in defining descendance. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Batch processing of CFJs 1948-51
Benjamin Schultz wrote: He got hit with two criminal CFJs for the same act. I'm trying to find a way to dismiss the second one as double jeopardy Make an ordinary ruling on culpability, but then sentence to DISCHARGE (under the manifestly unjust provision) if the verdict is GUILTY. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1944 assigned to Pavitra
ihope wrote: On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 7:06 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TTttPF ;) What, you're submitting it yourself? That's how I interpreted it (as promotor). It's a novel usage, and I don't like to set a precedent for TTttPF generally having this meaning when quoting someone else's message, but in this particular case comex's intent was clear. -zefram
DIS: Rules as Binding Agreement
. You need to be clear about where contractual obligations are rooted. Not explicit, and I think it's not sufficiently clear. -zefram
