DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [CotC] CFJ 2888 assigned to Tanner L. Swett
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: >> === CFJ 2888 (Interest Index = 0) > >> Judge: Tanner L. Swett > > CoE, accepted: this was ineffective, Tanner was supine (I hadn't > yet updated the DB to be aware of it). Presumably, the same goes for 2882. —Tanner L. Swett
DIS: Re: BUS: Resetting and empowering myself
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > CFJ, disqualifying Tanner L. Swett: In the message quoted in > evidence, Tanner L. Swett gained at least one erg. I don't think you've assigned this CFJ yet. Do you intend to? —Tanner L. Swett
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2878 assigned to omd
2010/10/11 : > That statement still depends on its own truth value, just indirectly. Due to Rule 2215, it would be illegal for me to make an unqualified public statement consisting of the following string (expect with the number 3000 incremented), followed by a quotation mark, followed by the same string again, followed by another quotation mark: "Due to Rule 2215, it would be illegal for me to make an unqualified public statement consisting of the following string (except with the number 3000 incremented), followed by a space, followed by a quotation mark, followed by the string again, followed by another quotation mark: " —Tanner L. Swett
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2878 assigned to omd
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:22 PM, omd wrote: > Maybe all recursive statements should just be considered > indeterminate, regardless of how they would come out if we attempted > to break them apart? Due to Rule 2215, it would be illegal for me to make an unqualified public statement consisting of the following string, followed by a quotation mark, followed by the string again, followed by another quotation mark: "Due to Rule 2215, it would be illegal for me to make an unqualified public statement consisting of the following string, followed by a space, followed by a quotation mark, followed by the string again, followed by another quotation mark: " —Tanner L. Swett
DIS: Re: BUS: Move along, nothing to see here
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 4:55 PM, John Smith wrote: > CfJ:The second NoV quoted below is not valid > > Arguments: According to Rule 2230, "A NoV is valid if and only if... no > previous valid NoV specified substantially identical information (i.e. the > same violation for the same specific act)." The first quoted NoV cited the > same violation and act; therefore, according to the given definition of > 'substantially identical', and assuming the first quoted NoV is valid, all > further NoVs citing the same violation and specific act are invalid > regardless of the identity of the accused. > > (should the first quoted NoV be ruled invalid, the second quoted NoV is most > likely invalid for the same reason.) Arguments: it's not "the same violation" if a different person is accused. —Tanner L. Swett
DIS: Re: BUS: I'm totally sorry
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Keba wrote: > I resign all my offices and go on hold. > > (What happens with the speaker office now?) I think that since the office of the Speaker is Imposed, you cannot resign it. —Tanner L. Swett
DIS: Confession
I believe that I did not distribute proposals or publish a pool report last week, and thus I am in contravention of the rules requiring me to do so. I will try to get them distributed later today. —Tanner L. Swett
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2865 judged FALSE by Taral
Gratuitous gratuitous evidence: to my knowledge, making a judicial declaration is not a regulated action. —Tanner L. Swett On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2865 > > === CFJ 2865 (Interest Index = 1) > > A document purporting to be a judicial declaration is only a > judicial declaration if made by a judge who is explicitly > required to make one. > > > > Caller: G. > Barred: omd > > Judge: Taral > Judgement: FALSE > > > > History: > > Called by G.: 17 Sep 2010 15:47:05 GMT > Assigned to Taral: 22 Sep 2010 14:16:44 GMT > Judged FALSE by Taral: 26 Sep 2010 18:20:08 GMT > > > > Caller's Arguments: > > Rule 2212 strongly implies that a "judicial declaration" is a regulated type > of > document, and it is not clear that a judge CAN make a "judicial declaration" > unless the rules explicitly require it. > > > > Gratuitous Arguments by omd: > > In that case, the clause about ambiguity of the List of Succession is > useless. > > > > Judge Taral's Arguments: > > Although Rule 2212 says that a judicial declaration made when one is > not required by the Rules is not self-ratifying, it does not actually > define what is and is not a judicial declaration. Therefore we are > forced to fall back on some kind of common sense, where a judicial > declaration is some kind of declaration made in the context of a CFJ, > presumably by the judge. > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Herald] ambiguous disambiguation?
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 11:46 PM, omd wrote: > I hereby invoke my R101 right to request formal reconsideration of a > judicial determination that I should be punished, and appeal the > judgement of CFJ 1631, as ruling that I registered three days later > than my original attempt prevents me from thinking (as I like to > think) that my Agoran anniversary is also my birthday. CFJ 1981 notes that a bad thing is not always a punishment. I quote Judge BobTHJ: I'm the father of a strong-willed 5 year old who thinks it is her duty to keep her younger siblings in line by beating them when they refuse to follow her instructions. Exasperated from having to discipline her yet again for pushing her brother, and running short on ideas for further effective punishments I made the mistake of asking the question "What do you think your punishment should be?" to which she replied "My brother can't get into my stuff for the rest of the week." The moral of this story is: a punishment selected by the criminally accused is often not a punishment at all. Effective punishment must be handed down by the authority. Therefore I echo the logic of root's gratuitous arguments and rule TRUE. —Tanner L. Swett
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Pool Report, 24 September 2010
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 7:23 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > I have no problem with missing a proposal. Announcing that it's > inconsequential because you think the proposal is stupid isn't > something I think we expect from our Promotor, though. Noted. I will be more civil in the future.
DIS: Re: BUS: Caring about it [attn Sgeo, Yally, Tiger, Murphy]
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 6:17 PM, ais523 wrote: > On Sun, 2010-09-26 at 18:10 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> I intend, without objection from 2 members of Imperial and without >> objection from 2 members of Team 4, to move Tiger to Team 4. > > I object. > I note that it's in Sgeo's and Yally's best interests to also object, > and probably also Tiger's and Murphy's, although that's less clear-cut. > (Sgeo: Yally: doing so reduces your chance of winning if you do well at > erg-gaining considerably; Tiger: Murphy: doing so reduces your chance of > winning in the likely situation that Imperial ends up ahead in the teams > race, although in Murphy's case, is not necessarily bad if you manage to > kidnap a high-scoring player from another team.) Usually, if two entities fulfill two roles (in this case, that of a three-person team and that of a four-person team), and they are not attached to their roles somehow, swapping roles is not bad for both of them. Tanner L. Swett, planning to get his em dash back soon
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2860 assigned to Taral
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Taral wrote: > On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 5:35 PM, omd wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Taral wrote: >>> 9. omd is the Pariah, and Rule 2312 applies to all players, including >>> judges. >> >> No I'm not. > > Oh? I was pretty sure I checked the records... things must have > changed on me. Thankfully it's not germane to the judgement. Yep, I'm the Pariah now. —Pariah Tanner L. Swett
DIS: Re: BUS: Erratification
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 1:44 AM, comex wrote:
> Proposal: Erratification
>
> Ratify the following incorrect document: { 1 + 1 = 3 }
The definition: "When a public document is ratified, the gamestate is
minimally modified so that the ratified document was completely true
and accurate at the time it was published." However, it is impossible
to modify the gamestate such that 1 + 1 = 3. The overall effect is
analogous to if the rules said "When X happens, the Speaker's judicial
rank is set such that no Rests exist." Perhaps the result would simply
be that the gamestate is maximally modified.
—Tanner L. Swett
DIS: A Thesis
Conclusion: List-of-Succession-like things are a huge headache. Let's go back to VLOPs. —Tanner L. Swett
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: ditto
Note to self: I now have 21 Rests. —Pariah Tanner L. Swett, still dangerously close to the edge
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Catchup League Table
On Tuesday, September 7, 2010, Warrigal wrote: > Without two objections from members of my team, I intend to change its > name to "Confederate". > > —Confederator Tanner L. Swett If possible, I do so. -- Cantr, a browser-based RPG: http://www.cantr.net/ Create a Lojban character so you can practice your Lojban!
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6842-6846
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Mon, 13 Sep 2010, Warrigal wrote: >> Also, I question whether violating a SHALL is a rule violation if >> GUILTY is inappropriate. > > Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? I momentarily forgot the text of "Mother, May I?". —Pariah Tanner L. Swett
DIS: Re: BUS: P fix
On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > Proposal: P fix (AI=1.7, II=0, Distributable) I'm interpreting this as meaning that you thereby make this proposal Distributable. —Promotor Tanner L. Swett
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Team balancing
> To create a Team Balancer means to create a new second-class > Player entitled "Team Balancer " followed by the smallest > positive integer that would cause the player to have a unique > name, which means there has never existed a player with that > name. Such a player is known as a Team Balancer then and this > integer is known as a Team Balancer's ID. I suggest using the existing ID number system instead of inventing your own. > The Referee SHOULD announce such a creation as soon as possible. > Creating a Team Balancer is secured. Make it SHALL; game changes should not be totally silent. > If the distribution of a set of Independent players among a set > of empty Teams causes these teams to have different high amounts > of members because this set contained an odd number of players, > then a Team Balancer is created for each of those teams with a > lower amount of players. This is repeated until all of those > teams consist of an equal high amount of players. What does "high" mean here? > If a player becomes a member of a team, because e registered and > that team contained one or more Team Balancers, the Team > Balancer who is a member of that team with the highest ID ceases > to be a member of that team, a Team Balancer and a player at > all. You can just say that the Team Balancer ceases to exist. > Whenever a non-Independent player gains an erg, that player's > Allegiance gains a Fan. At the beginning of each week, each Team > Balancer's Allegiance gains 6 ergs. Six? The Team Balancers are going to win every time. :) Overall, it seems it would be a lot easier to just award the ergs directly rather than creating new players and giving them ergs. —Commenter Tanner L. Swett
DIS: Re: BUS: [Promotor] Pool Report
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > CoE: This is missing about 6 proposals. Quite possibly every single > one proposed since I stopped record keeping. It is indeed missing every single one proposed since you stopped recordkeeping. I wasn't aware that there were any; somehow, a search for 'proposal' didn't turn anything up. Anyway, I will now hunt for new proposals. —Promotor Tanner L. Swett
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Ribbon Report
I say if the report was published at time T, and it does not say it's a report from time S, then it's a report from time T. —Tanner L. Swett
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Rebellion Die roll
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > No, PD is was exactly at one point. The logic: "All of us non-rebels left > will move lower on the list if the rebellion wins. So we (collectively) > want the rebellion to fail, so we shouldn't rebel (that's cooperation). > However, individually, I want to move the least-far-down, so I > (personally) should rebel before the others do (that's defecting). Even > if that means we non-rebels collectively get a worse outcome, at least > I beat the other non-rebels." Ah, yes, you're right. —Tanner L. Swett
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 4:41 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: > Hawkishness (Rule 1871) of active players > - > > Hovering: Tanner L. Swett > Taral > > All other active players are hemming-and-hawing. CoE: this is no longer defined. —Tanner L. Swett
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Rebellion Die roll
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I was also thinking towards the end that it's a pretty good Prisoner's > Dilemma situation set up. Towards the end (when chance was pretty > near 50/50) there were a few people who could better their position by > one by rebelling; then there were some folks who would worsen their > position by one if they rebelled, but lose by much more if they didn't > rebel and the rebellion worked... etc. This presupposed people were > paying attention which not everyone was, but it was interesting to > analyze and guess whether I'd rebel in their shoes. Not every game theory situation is a prisoner's dilemma. The prisoner's dilemma is when there is one option (defecting) where, for each player, defecting is better than not defecting, but it's better for both players if neither player defects than if both players defect. This, however, is pretty much a game of guess-the-most-popular option. —Promotor Tanner L. Swett
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: The FSCN
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > Does fungibility break this? No, because capacitors are not a currency. —Tanner L. Swett
DIS: Re: BUS: What can proposals actually do?
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > My argument is that this is governed by R2140(c). A Proposal is an > instrument of power, and if it attempts to create a token, it is > "modifying a substantive aspect" of the rule defining the Tokens (my > argument implies that it is the token-defining Rule that matters, not any > rule that may govern an individual award, nor one that governs broader > definitions such as assets in general. This would lead to a judgement > of FALSE/TRUE on the linked CFJs. Arguably, the things a rule merely defines are not aspects of that rule at all, any more than the United States is an aspect of federal law. This is probably the interpretation we should go with for the good of Agora. —Tanner L. Swett
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: White Renaissance
Note that "class" isn't actually defined by the rules. It could just as easily be "type", or even "set". If the rules state that something is a class of asset, that doesn't really tell us anything we didn't already know. Now, here's what the key thing to realize is, as I see it. An asset only exists if it is defined by the rules. Ribbons are defined by the rules, and they're defined as having colors. Colors do *not* only exist if they are defined by the rules; they exist independently of them. There are only two ways for White Ribbons to cease to exist: white ceasing to be a color (which it did not do), and ribbons ceasing to be defined by the rules. —Tanner L. Swett, beginning to get emotionally attached to the side he's arguing for, which, as everyone knows, is a bad thing
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: White Renaissance
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 1:23 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> > On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Warrigal wrote: >> > > The asset defined is not "white ribbon"; it is "ribbon". Every ribbon >> > > then has a color. A white ribbon is a ribbon whose color is white; >> > > even though the rules stop using the term "white ribbon", white does >> > > not cease to be a color. (Likewise, a rule can have power 3 even >> > > though the rules never define 3 as a valid non-negative rational >> > > number.) Even if it white did cease to be a color for some reason, the >> > > ribbon would have to revert to a default color; there is no reason for >> > > a ribbon to stop existing simply because its color ceases to be >> > > defined, any more than a proposal or a player would cease to exist if >> > > its Title ceased to be defined. > > Counterargument: "Each color of Ribbon is a currency." (R2199). > This implies (by currency definition) that the individual fungible classes > of ribbon are in fact distinct enough to cease to exist if their color > wholly ceases to be defined. -G. "A currency" just means "fungible within itself"; it says nothing about distinction from other assets. "Fungible" certainly never means "ceasing to exist when one of its attributes ceases to be defined"! If a ribbon can exist without its color being specified by the rules *or* white is still considered a color even though it's never defined as a color, then white ribbons still exist in some form. I believe that *both* of these are true. Have we already called the relevant CFJs, i.e. "There exists a white ribbon" and "For some white ribbon that existed before 'white ribbon' ceased to be defined by the rules, that ribbon still exists"? —Further Arguer Tanner L. Swett
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: White Renaissance
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Warrigal wrote: >> While this does result in White Ribbons not being needed for a >> Renaissance win (as White is no longer mentioned in the rule), it does >> not result in White Ribbons ceasing to exist, as they are never >> destroyed and are still implicitly defined. > > Any asset that exists only as a legal fiction ceases to exist when > there's no rule maintaining that fiction. The asset defined is not "white ribbon"; it is "ribbon". Every ribbon then has a color. A white ribbon is a ribbon whose color is white; even though the rules stop using the term "white ribbon", white does not cease to be a color. (Likewise, a rule can have power 3 even though the rules never define 3 as a valid non-negative rational number.) Even if it white did cease to be a color for some reason, the ribbon would have to revert to a default color; there is no reason for a ribbon to stop existing simply because its color ceases to be defined, any more than a proposal or a player would cease to exist if its Title ceased to be defined. —Gratuitous Arguer Tanner L. Swett
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: White Renaissance
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Keba wrote:
> Proposal "White Renaissance" (AI=1, II=1, distributable via fee)
> {{{
> Amend Rule 2199 "Ribbons" by removing:
>
> (except for White Ribbons, which can be awarded at any time
> within a month after they are earned)
>
> [So, no one possesses a White Ribbon anymore and White Ribbons are not
> needed for a Renaissance win]
> }}}
While this does result in White Ribbons not being needed for a
Renaissance win (as White is no longer mentioned in the rule), it does
not result in White Ribbons ceasing to exist, as they are never
destroyed and are still implicitly defined.
—Tanner L. Swett
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: ARGH
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > When an officer becomes inactive, all of eir offices become Assumed. > Anyone can assume the office, and even immediately resign it if it > seems likely that things will get done by deputization more > efficiently when the office is empty. For every Assumed office, I assume that office and then resign it. —Nttpfer Tanner L. Swett
Re: DIS: The FSCN
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Keba wrote: > Hm, I like the weekly destroying of ergs and capacitors, because I like > the way the current economy works, so I am against a manual destroying. Well, one of our stated purposes is to allow players to accumulate power. How do you propose that this be accomplished? —Tanner L. Swett
Re: DIS: The FSCN
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 7:57 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > I think that could be accomplished by making capacitors a bit more > accumulable. Are they tradeable, for example? I'd say up the price for > creating them out of ergs, and instead make it so that they don't > automatically go back to erg form at the start of a week, but rather > have to be transformed by the player. Yes, I think this would work really well. Just make it so that capacitors persist from week to week and have to be converted manually. I'm for it. Sgeo, Keba, any comments? —FSCN Member Tanner L. Swett
Re: DIS: The FSCN
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > I am, though I'm not sure of what I have to offer the FSCN. On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Keba wrote: > I would like to join, as I like team play. Well, then, you're in. I hereby inceive the FSCN, composed of me, Sgeo, Tiger, and Keba. We should probably draft a charter at some point, but that's not necessary just yet. So, what shall we do first? I guess I can draft a proposal to create an accumulable currency that you can turn ergs into. What benefits can we provide for holding this currency? A Losing Condition for lacking it? Making it required in order to run for office? (Extra votes in elections?) Letting you use it to extend voting periods? What do you three think? For that matter, what does Agora as a whole think, since FSCN currently has no special power at all? —Co-Founder Tanner L. Swett
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Leet Leadership
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Keba wrote: > Warrigal wrote: >> I suggest adding a clause like this: "If there is ambiguity about the >> number of words in a proposal (for example, if there are hyphenated >> words), it SHOULD be interpreted as containing exactly 1337 words, if >> possible." Thus, people don't have to avoid ambiguous things like >> "bilge-pump" in their proposals; they can just include them and it >> will be good enough. > > Or we define a word as everything between two whitespaces except > whitespecaes. If we did that, this sentence would be twenty words long. —Unicoder Tanner L. Swett
DIS: The FSCN
Sgeo and I have created an informal alliance, which we're calling the FSCN. The goal of the FSCN is to bring its own members a disproportionate amount of power within Agora, and keep it. We shall accomplish this by promoting proposals giving power to the elite, and allowing players to accumulate power that cannot easily be taken from them. We're looking for up to three other people to join. Who's interested? —Co-Founder Tanner L. Swett
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Leet Leadership
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Keba wrote:
> Proposal "Leet Leadership" (AI=1, II=1, distributable via fee)
> {{{
> Create a new Rule with power=1 entitled "Leet Leadership":
>
> When an interested proposal consisting of exact 1337 words
> (excluding information like name, or adoption/interest index) is
> enacted, its proposer CAN in a timely fashion award emself a
> Leadership Token.
> }}}
That should be "exactly 1337".
I suggest adding a clause like this: "If there is ambiguity about the
number of words in a proposal (for example, if there are hyphenated
words), it SHOULD be interpreted as containing exactly 1337 words, if
possible." Thus, people don't have to avoid ambiguous things like
"bilge-pump" in their proposals; they can just include them and it
will be good enough.
—Suggester Tanner L. Swett
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Perpetuum mobile
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 8:52 PM, wrote: > AGAINST unless it's "labour" Then it looks like my vote will effectively denounce yours. —Disagreer Tanner L. Swett
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Perpetuum mobile
"Labour" still means "work", not "worker". May I suggest "Undergrad" or "Intern"? —Tanner L. Swett
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2847-49 assigned to Wooble
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:41 PM, ais523 wrote: > On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 20:36 -0400, Sgeo wrote: >> There is a nomic [of admittedly questionable nomicness, but not >> existence, I think] called The Robot... > > Warrigal's one where causality works backwards? No, H. Sgeo's one where all events take place in a single sentence. —Tanner L. Swett
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2842 assigned to Tanner L. Swett
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2842 > > == Criminal Case 2842 (Interest Index = 2) === > > Murphy violated Power-1 Rule 2143 by failing to publish an ATC's > report in the week starting August 2. > > Proto-judgement: Murphy held the office of ATC during the entire week starting August 2, and did not publish an ATC's report during that week. Since it appears that all the criteria are fulfilled, I judge GUILTY. The default penalty for violating a power-1 rule is two rests. Since neither party has provided an argument that this should be increased or decreased, I judge SILENCE 2. omd, Murphy, others, do you have any comments? —Judge Tanner L. Swett
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More fun with nomenclature
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 5:23 PM, ais523 wrote: > On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 17:17 -0400, Warrigal wrote: >> Do you mean "Head Gardener: 2"? > > No; they're equal in the original proposal. And 2 is the default. At least fix the spelling of "gardener". —Proofreader Tanner L. Swett
DIS: Re: BUS: More fun with nomenclature
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > Grand Vizier: 3 > Head Gardner: 3 > Crown Prince: 1 Do you mean "Head Gardener: 2"? —Proofreader Tanner L. Swett
DIS: Re: BUS: Computor informs
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > The shuttle has completed two very short journeys in quick succession. > For each journey, every player who was active and not the enemy at the > start of it has earned one farad. > > I award myself two capacitors for being onboard at the end of both journeys. I do the same. —Very Helpful Crew Member Tanner L. Swett
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Rights are important
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Keba wrote:
> Proposal "Rights are important" (AI=3.5, II=1, distributable via fee)
> {{{
> Increase the power of Rule 101 "The Rights of Agorans" to 3.5.
An AI of 3 is sufficient for this, as an instrument with a power of 3
is not restricted.
—Tanner L. Swett
Re: DIS: PM protosal
"Perpepuum" isn't a word, to my knowledge; perhaps you're after the phrase "perpetual motion machine". "Labour" means "job" or "physical task", so "Lab Worker" might work better there. —Tanner L. Swett
DIS: Re: BUS: Not a cronjob
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > I change my nickname to 'The Robot'. > > -coppro I publish a Notice of Violation accusing coppro of violating rule 2170 (power 3) by changing eir nickname to "The Robot", a confusing nickname. —Accuser Tanner L. Swett
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Different voting limits on democratic decisions?
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 6:40 PM, wrote:
> Proposal "Different voting limits on democratic decisions?" (AI=2, II=1,
> distributable via fee)
> {{{
> Amend rule 2284 "Fee-based actions" by replacing
>
> A player CAN increase eir voting limit on a specified decision to
> adopt a proposal in its voting period by 2Q, by paying a fee of Q.
>
> with:
>
> A player CAN increase eir voting limit on a specified ordinary
> decision to adopt a proposal in its voting period by 2Q, by paying a fee of
> Q.
> }}}
Well, this change is *technically* unnecessary, since rule
prevents a person's voting limit on a democratic proposal from
exceeding 1, but I don't want to rely on that staying the same.
—Commenter Tanner L. Swett
DIS: Re: BUS: Hoisting one's own wormhole
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > On an unrelated note, my primary computer's power supply shorted out and > caught fire a few days ago, meaning that I have only minimal use of it over > the next couple of weeks until a replacement can be shipped (i.e. until the > batteries run out). This means that my nomic-playing is confined to > public-access and borrowed computers; which indirectly means that my mail > access is likely to be confined to via Yahoo! (The bham.ac.uk address is > nowadays forwarded to a different address; arguably, all the emails I send > via it have faked headers, but the SMTP server I use doesn't seem to mind, > and it belongs to the domain in question and authenticates me.) Although I > can send plaintext emails via Yahoo! on my main computer, that's via an > external program, and I can't easily do that on other people's computers. As > a result, it may be hard for me to compose reports in plaintext, as required > by the rules. > > What should I do instead? Resign as Referee and publish unofficial reports > until the computer problems are fixed? I would make your reports as close to plaintext as possible (you could argue that HTML with no formatting *is* plaintext) and ask for a DISCHARGE if someone complains. —Not-Really-A-Lawyer Tanner L. Swett
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: D-Proposal: Barrel of Monkeys
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > I believe this fails; you did not specify which Fragments you were using. Submitting the proposal succeeded, but making it a D-Proposal failed. —Lawyer Tanner L. Swett
DIS: Re: BUS: D-Proposal: Barrel of Monkeys
You may want to add some fragments to this proposal's inode. Also, the first paragraph contains the typo "repot". —Coauthorial Candidate Tanner L. Swett
DIS: Obsolete draft: the proto-contract "Rent-a-Self"
This has been hanging out in my drafts folder since the beginning of
this year. I've decided to finish it up and post it for the sake of
entertainment.
{This is a public contract known as Rent-a-Self. Membership in this
contract is restricted to players. Device number is a
party-to-this-contract switch, recordkept by the Minotaur, with values
0 (default) and 1. Parties to this contract are known as Masters if
this value is 0, and Slaves if it is 1. Parties to this contract other
than non-Emancipated Slaves can switch their device number or leave
this contract by announcement.
The Minotaur is a position held by an active party to this contract.
If it would not be held by any active party, it is held by the active
person who has been a party the longest. The Minotaur can transfer the
position to a different party by announcement, and SHALL do so if e is
unable or unwilling to carry out the Minotaur's duties.
For each Slave, that Slave's Chain is a singleton asset recordkept by
the Minotaur and initially owned by the Lost and Found Department.
Ownership of Chains is restricted to Masters. A Slave is Emancipated
if eir Chain is owned by the LFD. An Emancipated Slave CAN transfer
eir Chain to any Master by announcement.
A Protected Action is defined as deregistering, agreeing to a
contract, transferring away an asset, or speaking. A Master can act on
behalf of any Slave whose Chain e owns to take any non-Protected
action. A non-Emancipated Slave SHALL NOT take any non-Protected
action in Agora; if e does, e SHOULD NOT be punished until e is no
longer a non-Emancipated Slave.
If a Slave has been non-Emancipated continuously for 90 days, e
becomes Emancipated.}
—Wannabe Minotaur Tanner L. Swett
DIS: Re: BUS: Opinion on 2830a
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > I opine AFFIRM without prejudice. The original judgement suggests a > precedent that even a disclaimered statement violates Truthiness if you > don't reasonably believe it could be true. I opine AFFIRM without prejudice for the same reason. —Judicial Panelist Tanner L. Swett
DIS: Re: BUS: *Wakes up after a multi-month nap*
Waking up after a multi-month nap seems like a good idea to me. I become active. I sit. I change my nickname to Tanner L. Swett. —Tanner L. Swett, now one of the few Agorans who uses his real name for Agora but a nickname for his "From" line
DIS: Re: BUS: prop
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:15 AM, comex wrote: > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 6:22 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: >> coppro wrote: >> >>> I transfer a prop from Yally to Warrigal, as Yally inexcusably missed >>> Warrigal's registration. >> >> I transfer a prop from coppro to Yally, as coppro identified the wrong >> thing (Yally missed Warrigal's activation not registration) and it's >> potentially excusable (depending on whether e failed to subscribe to >> the backup lists at all, failed to filter them to folders in a way e >> would properly notice, etc.). >> > > I transfer a prop from Yally to coppro, as I don't believe this > outweighs coppro's complaint. I transfer a prop from Murphy, for thinking that coppro's prop transfer was punishable, to comex, for reversing the punishment. --uorygl
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: prop
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 18:52, Sean Hunt wrote: >> I transfer a prop from Yally to Warrigal, as Yally inexcusably missed >> Warrigal's registration. >> >> -coppro >> > > I still do not see when this occurred. Perhaps I didn't receive the > email with the recent list problems? Search BAK for "this i do it". --Warrigal
Re: DIS: What is wrong with you all?
2009/7/29 Elliott Hird : > 2009/7/29 Ed Murphy : >> Alternatively, wikidot now lets you run a version of their server >> software on your own server (which you can scrape all you want), though >> I haven't looked into their migration tools. > > Uhh, the main issue is that the software is really terrible. Yes, but once you have your own server, you can scrape it all you want. --Warrigal
DIS: Re: BUS: Encoding Proposal
2009/7/8 Warrigal : > LATIN CAPITAL LETTER H > LATIN SMALL LETTER O > LATIN SMALL LETTER W Please disregard this message. It is a typo. --Warrigal
DIS: Re: BUS: Encoding Proposal
LATIN CAPITAL LETTER H LATIN SMALL LETTER O LATIN SMALL LETTER W
Re: DIS: Re: agora-official digest, Vol 1 #2690 - 2 msgs
2009/7/1 Gabriel Vistica : > Hi everybody, > > I've been watching for a couple of days now, wanting to figure out some of > what is going on before I jump in. > Could someone explain to me the "Lead Sheet" report (what its for, what > certain things mean, etc.)? That is the Conductor's report, published as required by Rule 2126 via Rule 2166 via Rule 2143. Chiefly, it lists how many of each type of Note (Rule 2126) each player owns. --Warrigal
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs (attn Tanner Swett, ais523, Wooble)
2009/7/1 Ed Murphy : > As CotC, I intend (without 3 objections) to change this case's > Interest Index to 0. You can't; only the Justiciar and the Justiciar can do that. Which is silly enough that it might be false. --Warrigal, who thinks that citing Agora's rules in APA format is silly
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: An action
2009/6/29 Ed Murphy : > I figured out how to get this into the database, but why does > http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/status.php (newly modified to > specify charset=utf-8 rather than charset=iso-8859-1) render it > incorrectly by default? Your HTTP server is sending a Content-Type header that's overriding the specification in the page itself. You'll have to either fix that or recode that schwa in ISO-8859-1 or entities. Here are the headers, since I think they look cool: GET /cotc/status.php HTTP/1.1 host: zenith.homelinux.net HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:03:36 GMT Server: Apache/2.0.40 (Red Hat Linux) Accept-Ranges: bytes X-Powered-By: PHP/4.2.2 Pragma: no-cache Cache-control: no-cache Expires: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 01:03:42 -0700 Transfer-Encoding: chunked Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 --Warrigal "David slowed his pace slightly as his ears, bottled in formaldehyde, caught his eye. 'Oh,' he thought, 'to be alive again.'"
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2611 assigned to Tanner Swett
Proto-judgement (and top-post): TRUE, because unless you believe a contract is a forum, you have no reason to attempt to flip its Publicity to Public; any attempt to do so is almost certainly an attempt to flip its Disclosure to Public. I'm withholding this judgement because it may be that even if this were an attempt to flip a contract's Disclosure to Public, it would not have succeeded. --Tanner "Warrigal" Swett 2009/6/24 Ed Murphy > > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2611 > > == CFJ 2611 == > > The Grid's Disclosure has been flipped. > > > > Caller: allispaul > > Judge: Tanner Swett > Judgement: > > > > History: > > Called by allispaul: 24 Jun 2009 06:42:55 GMT > Assigned to Tanner Swett: (as of this message) > > > > Caller's Arguments: > > First, you want to flip the contract's *Disclosure*, not *Publicity*, to > Public. > >
Re: [s-b] DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Y'know, B Nomic doesn't have any second-class persons...
2009/6/21 Craig Daniel : > Perhaps gratuitously, I observe that as the digraph "ou" is not > actually valid in Lojban, the name ".deivyd.sloud." (Warrigal's > attempted Lojbanization of the name 'David slowed his pace slightly as > his ears,") is malformed and thus under the contract's own > self-amendment rules his changes have not in fact taken effect. > However, as any Lojban text they inserted into it was subsequently > removed (noted below), I don't believe this is relevant. "ou" is not a valid diphthong, meaning it's split into syllables: .deivyd.slo,ud. Given this, of course, .deivyd.slod. probably would have been a better Lojbanization. --Warrigal "David slowed his pace slightly as his ears, protruding as they were, kept snagging on the foliage."
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A wisp of vapor escapes the fountain...
2009/6/17 Charles Reiss > I don't think your attempt to define 'Marvy' does anything. (The judge, > after carefully considering the implications of using it as guidance, > will probably decide not to in the best interest of the game.) And, > well, "you who are marvellous" probably isn't a bad 'ordinary language' > interpretation. (Don't like that it's not a noun? Please direct your > complaint to Ozymandias c/o Mr Shelley.) I believe his name is Mu-Nan, and you'd be better of sending it c/o NFN Llewellyn anyway. Oh, wait, *that* Ozymandias. --Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering on behalf
2009/6/16 Elliott Hird > 2009/6/16 Taral : > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:43 AM, Elliott > > Hird wrote: > >> NOTE: this is scripted. Myndzi replies to all actions like that. No > >> consent was involved. > > > > I'd say consent was involved in the writing of a script. > > > > -- > > Taral > > "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." > > -- Unknown > > > > He was not aware in any way of this. He was after the fact, when he said something along the lines of "this is why I don't play nomic".
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: An action
2009/6/15 Craig Daniel : > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Paul VanKoughnett > wrote: >> >> I agree to the mid central lax unrounded vowel contract. >> > > I believe there are still two, although your having quoted one likely > causes it to be unambiguously the one you joined. Nobody except me agreed to the old ə, and I un-agreed to it. From it. --Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Grand Poobah Election
2009/6/14 Benjamin Caplan :
> Gratuitous: contracts, including pledges, generally don't require public
> messages. It's possible to make a pledge to a-d, or by private email. If
> G.'s intent was to make a pledge immediately, then that's probably what
> happened.
>
> Or does that not work anymore now that pledges are always public contracts?
A contract cannot become a public contract unless its text and list of
parties are simultaneously published. Whether it can start out as a
public contract is debatable.
I agree to the following: {This is a public contract and a pledge
known as ä, which terminates 24 hours from the time of its
publication. Anyone can act on my behalf to CFJ on the following
statement: "Within the past 24 hours, Warrigal created a pledge known
as ä."}
--Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: An action
2009/6/14 Alex Smith : > On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 02:21 -0400, Warrigal wrote: >> I cease to agree to all non-binding agreements. > As the notary, I think the only effect this has is to cancel any > contract creation attempts you made in the past which failed because > they weren't taken up by other players. I agree with your interpretation. --Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: An action
2009/6/14 Sean Hunt : > Disagree, is binding. I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem to be a sentence. Are you saying "I disagree; it's binding"? "'Disagree' is binding"? Something else which would actually make sense to me in this context? --Warrigal
Re: DIS: Do card specialty decks?
2009/6/13 Kerim Aydin : > 3. Each card type has a frequency in each deck (a matrix). Legislative is > mostly vote power cards; Judicial (obvious); Academic is Proposal > distribution cards. Bureucratic deals with offices. Some chance of > drawing a "roll again from a different deck". Monthly draws are from > deck frequencies indicated by players' switches. I imagine that Legislative and Academic could be merged into a single Legislative deck; they're both about proposals. Renaming Bureaucratic to Executive would make a lot of sense. --Warrigal the Rationalistic Rationalizer
DIS: Nickname changes need not be public, assuming that hasn't changed
I change my nickname to Tanner Swett. --Tom, who would like to go back to being called Warrigal
DIS: Re: BUS: Official Secrets Act, Patriot Act, and Secret Decisions
If I may...
Official Secrets Act (AI = 3, II = 2)
{Create a new Power 1 Rule, titled "The Official Secrets Act" with the
following text:
{The Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) is the agreement with the
following text: "This is a public contract and a pledge known as the
Non-Disclosure Agreement." Parties to the NDA are known as Agents.
Agents who do not have an outstanding twelve months' notice are known
as Bona Fide Agents (BFAs).
Information defined by the Rules as being one of the following levels
of secrecy is Restricted Information. Agents SHALL NOT disclose or
discuss any part of any Restricted Information. Persons other than
BFAs SHOULD NOT be given access to Restricted Information.
The following, in descending order of importance, are levels of secrecy:
* TOP SECRET (TS). It is the Class 6 Crime of Causing Grave Damage to
Agoran Security to disclose or discuss TOP SECRET information.
* Secret. It is the Class 2 Crime of Espionage to disclose or discuss
Secret information.
* Confidential. It is the Class 1 Crime of Damaging the Agoran State
to disclose or discuss Confidential information.
Unless the rule defining a class of Restricted Information states
otherwise, Restricted Information ceases to be Restricted three months
after its creation; it is then LEGAL and ENCOURAGED to disclose and
discuss such information.
If the answer to a judicial case depends on Restricted Information,
the judge MAY judge UNDETERMINED, NOT GUILTY, or the null contract,
and SHOULD do so if a different judgement would amount to disclosing
Restricted Information.}
Amend Rule 101, item v. to read "Every player has the right of
participation in the fora, unless e has agreed to a binding
non-disclosure agreement and is still a party to it. Such players have
the right to leave such agreements at twelve months' notice, and to
cancel such notice."}
Further proto-proto: secret judicial cases, where the details are
disclosed only to interested parties.
--Tom
DIS: Re: BUS: Official Secrets Act, Patriot Act, and Secret Decisions
2009/6/8 Charles Walker :
> I submit the following three proposals:
> {
> Official Secrets Act
> AI = 1, II = 2
> Create a new Power 1 Rule, titled "The Official Secrets Act" with the
> following text:
This is going to run afoul of Rule 101 unless you amend it. Also,
let's not have "Secret Information" and "information that is Secret"
mean different things; call the whole class "restricted information"
or something.
> {
> Patriot Act
> AI = 2, II = 3
> Create a new Power 2 Rule, titled "The Patriot Act", with the following
> text:
> {{
> During an Emergency Session, a Senator CAN create Rests in the possession of
> a non-Senator without Senator objection or with 3 Senator support.
> }}
> }
Say that the with-3-Senator-support one can only be done every so
often, or cannot put a person above a certain number of Rests, or
something, so that a group of four Senators won't be able to exile
everyone. (Unless one of them is the Clerk of the Courts.)
--Tom
DIS: Re: BUS: Forming the IBA
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 5:35 PM, comex wrote: > A person CAN deposit an asset by transferring it to the IBA; e then > gains the Effective Rate in zorkmids. > > The Effective Rate for a deposit is its Rate, multiplied by a value > depending on the number of previous deposits made in the same week > with the same Executor, and rounded to the nearest integer: You know, the original Bank of Agora allowed fractional rates, and depositing many of something at once would allow taking advantage of this, so that even very small assets could be deposited for whatever they're worth. Under this system of integer deposits, you pretty much just hope that the value of a zorkmid is a fraction of the value of anything worth depositing. --Tom
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Fixing Rule 2150 Bug
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > Proposal: Fixing Rule 2150 Bug (AI = 3, II = 0): > > As Rule 2150 goes on to further disambiguate between biological persons and > non-biological persons, it seems inaccurate to reference ALL persons as > being strictly biological. > > Change the second paragraph of Rule 2150 from: > > Any biological organism that is generally capable of communicating by email > in English (including via a translation service) is a person. > > to: > > Any entity that is generally capable of communicating by email in English > (including via a translation service) is a person. Contrary to what you said, the second paragraph of Rule 2150 is not a definition of "person"; it is merely stating that, among other things, those things are persons. Allowing *anything* capable of communicating in English would probably include a lot of things we don't want to include, such as arbitrary computer programs written by arbitrary people. --Warrigal--no, that's not right. Thomas O'Malley.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: moronservi...@gmail.com
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Warrigal wrote: >> --Thomas O'Malley (see, I remembered this time) > > What is your official name anyway "Warrigal"? I believe it's Abraham de Lacey Giuseppe Casey Thomas O'Malley. --Thomas O'Malley
DIS: Re: BUS: moronservi...@gmail.com
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 12:20 AM, Luke Benner wrote: > I am requesting to join Agora. The name I will be writing under will be > Randy Olshaw. Lessee, by Rule 217, "to join Agora" is the same as "to register", so you're requesting registration, which, by Rule 869, makes you a player. I think. Welcome to Agora, H. New Player Randy Olshaw. --Thomas O'Malley (see, I remembered this time)
DIS: Re: BUS: [Promotor] Distributions & Report
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I submit the following proposal, entitled {Instant Adoption}, AI 3, II
> 1, coauthored by Goethe:
> {{{
> Create a new power-3 rule:
> {{
> A player may cause instant adoption of a proposal that has not
> yet been voted on with A*P/(A+1) support, rounded down to the
> nearest integer, where A is the proposal's adoption index and P
> is, if there is an ongoing vote on the proposal, the number of
> eligible first-class voters, otherwise the number of active
> first-class players.
>
> When a proposal is instantly adopted, it is removed from the
> Proposal Pool, any Agoran Decisions on whether to adopt it
> cease to exist, its power is set to the lesser of its Adoption
> Index and 4, and it takes effect, any rule to the contrary
> notwithstanding. The Assessor SHALL make note of the effects of
> the instant adoption, but failure to do so does not prevent the
> instant adoption from taking effect.
> }}
>
> Amend rule 106 by replacing {This rule takes precedence over any rule
> which would permit a proposal to take effect.} with {Causing or
> otherwise permitting a proposal to take effect is only possible by Rules
> with power greater than or equal to 3.}.
> }}}
The problem with having multiple ways to change the rules generally is
that every one has to fail simultaneously for "Agora Is A Nomic" to
kick in. This is fine if every general rule change method is actually
a reasonable way to change the rules, but if you have one like "with
12 support and no objections" in there, Agora loses its protection.
--Warri--er, Thomas O'Malley
Re: DIS: Re: A possibly illegal nickname change performed at 2:44 in the morning
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Tue, 31 Mar 2009, Warrigal wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 2:44 AM, Warrigal wrote: >>> I change my nickname to Thomas O'Malley. >> >> See, this is what happens when you do things at 2:44 in the morning. I >> forgot two thirds of it. >> >> I change my nickname to Abraham de Lacey Giuseppe Casey Thomas >> O'Malley, abbreviated Thomas O'Malley, abbreviated Thomas, abbreviated >> Tom. > > Can I be the butler? Only if you promise not to send me to Timbuktu. --Thomas
DIS: Re: A possibly illegal nickname change performed at 2:44 in the morning
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 2:44 AM, Warrigal wrote: > I change my nickname to Thomas O'Malley. See, this is what happens when you do things at 2:44 in the morning. I forgot two thirds of it. I change my nickname to Abraham de Lacey Giuseppe Casey Thomas O'Malley, abbreviated Thomas O'Malley, abbreviated Thomas, abbreviated Tom. --the player formerly known as Warrigal
DIS: A possibly illegal nickname change performed at 2:44 in the morning
I change my nickname to Thomas O'Malley. --Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2426 judged TRUE by coppro
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 7:25 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: >> ehird wrote: >> The following is in base64 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base64) >> encoding: >> >> Q0ZKOiB7VGhpcyB0aGluZyBpcyBhIENGSi59Cg== >> >> [I'll retract this if you accept my previous case] In that case, I won't attempt to appeal. --Warrigal
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2426 judged TRUE by coppro
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2426 > > == CFJ 2426 == > > This thing is a CFJ. > > In what message was this called? I may want to appeal it if it sets the precedent that it's possible to change whether a past message was effective or not. --Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: A Silly Bribe
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > You seriously don't want to see the sort of thing a decent player could > do if they had a positive power. (It wouldn't even need to be as high as > 1.) Okay, what could they do with a positive power? --Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto-proposal: Fixing a period from the 14th to the 17th century
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Elliott Hird wrote:
>> 2009/3/21 Sean Hunt :
>>> Looking at the archives, the only effect of this clause would be to
>>> cause Zefram to win, rather than awaiting his return and posting es own
>>> win announcement. (Is {es} the correct word there? Or would {is} or
>>> {eis} be better?)
>>
>> eir.
>
> Ah, thanks. I thought that was only used in the possessive.
If "awaiting his return and posting [something] own win announcement"
isn't the possessive, then what is it?
--Warrigal
Re: DIS: InterNomic II
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > We should so join this, right? I imagine it would be similar if Agora and B simply joined each other, or at least if B joined Agora. I believe that BlogNomic will not join. --Warrigal
DIS: Re: BUS: SGVsbG8sIHdvcmxkIQ==
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> Q0ZKOiB7VGhpcyBDRkogZXhpc3RzLn0=
For the benefit of Murphy and/or anyone else who's interested:
ih...@normish:~$ echo 'SGVsbG8sIHdvcmxkIQ==' | base64 -d; echo
Hello, world!
ih...@normish:~$ echo 'Q0ZKOiB7VGhpcyBDRkogZXhpc3RzLn0=' | base64 -d; echo
CFJ: {This CFJ exists.}
ih...@normish:~$
Gratuitous arguments: I consider these encoded messages to be
practically unambiguous, as this seemed like the obvious way to decode
them, I can't think of any other way to decode them, and the amount of
information in the decoded output seems to match the amount of
information in the encoded messages, indicating that there is no or
very little content which has not been revealed.
--Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: This works nowadays, which is pretty cool
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Warrigal wrote: >> I believe precedent is that flipping a certain Agoran switch (namely, >> Citizenship) is not the same as an explicit, willful agreement to be >> bound by the rules. I see no reason the same shouldn't be true of >> becoming a player of B. > > Rule 1-4: "A Player is an Outsider who consents to be governed by the > rules[...]" Point. --Warrigal
Re: DIS: Proto-proposal: Agora Corporation
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: > The provision about rests is unnecessary; as the Agora Corporation is a > second-class person. Indeed. Let's make it "Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the voting limit of Agora Corporation on an ordinary decision is 8, if no member of its basis possesses any Rests." > The Corporation should also have a basis; it seems appropriate for it to > be the empty set. How about making it the singleton set containing only the CEO? Alternatively, let people join and leave it relatively freely, but limit the number of AGRA they can own if they're not in it. On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:19 AM, Elliott Hird wrote: > The point? It's yet another of my schemes to give Agora a fungible, liquid, relatively stable currency. --Warrigal
DIS: Proto-proposal: Agora Corporation
I venture the following proposal, titled "Agora Corporation", with
adoption index 2:
{Create a rule, titled "Agora Corporation", with power 2:
{There is a person known as Agora Corporation. Agora Corporation
consists of a text, and CAN act as its text allows. Agora
Corporation's text can also modify itself. Changes to Agora
Corporation's text are secured. Agora Corporation SHALL remain
relatively open to modification by the players at large.
AGRA are a currency. The Chief Executive Offiçor, or CEO, is a
low-priority office and the recordkeepor of AGRA. The CEO's report
includes the text of Agora Corporation. Agora Corporation CAN award
and revoke AGRA by announcement. Whenever a first-class person is
registered, e is awarded 1000 AGRA. Whenever a first-class person is
deregistered, e is revoked 1000 AGRA, if possible; otherwise, e is
awarded two Rests.
The phrase "with N Corporate Consent" (default: N = 1) means that an
action can be taken between 4 and 14 days after announcement of intent
to take the action as long as the ratio of AGRA held by supporters to
AGRA held by objectors is greater than N:1.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the voting limit of Agora
Corporation on an ordinary decision is 8, if it does not possess any
Rests.}
Register Agora Corporation. Award 1000 AGRA to every first-class
person. Set the text of Agora Corporation to the following:
{Bylaw 1 (Hard):
The text of Agora Corporation consists of Bylaws, which are either
Hard or Soft. Soft Bylaws cannot modify Hard Bylaws or cause anything
to become a Hard Bylaw. In a conflict between a Hard Bylaw and a Soft
Bylaw, the Hard Bylaw takes precedence. Any player CAN modify a Hard
Bylaw with 2 Corporate Consent.
Bylaw 2 (Soft):
Any player CAN modify a Soft Bylaw or publish any message on Agora
Corporation's behalf with 1 Corporate Consent.}}
--Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2412 assigned to ehird
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Benjamin Schultz wrote: >> While we've found that SHALL -> CAN, we haven't found that SHALL NOT -> >> CANNOT. In fact, accepting that SHALL NOT -> CANNOT would probably >> break a lot of things. > > It seems to me (based on a dusty recollection of formal logic) that CANNOT > -> SHALL NOT, given that SHALL -> CAN. The negation of SHALL is NEED NOT, not SHALL NOT. Not that NEED NOT is actually defined by MMI. --Warrie
DIS: Re: BUS: PNP Parties Change
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 5:33 PM, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: > This message serves to announce and make effective changes to > the list of parties to the PerlNomic Partnership (a public contract). > > The current list of parties is: > Nickname Email > Dvorak dvorak.herr...@gmail.com > RainerWasserfuhr rainerwasserfuhr+perlno...@gmail.com > Wooble geoffsp...@gmail.com > ais523 ais...@bham.ac.uk > ihope ihope...@gmail.com I consent to being a party to the PerlNomic Partnership. --Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The inevitable CfJs
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Not so good. This means that if a power-1 rule says MAY X, and a power-2 > rule says MAY NOT X, then the power-3 MMI would make the power-1 MAY > take precedence over the power-2 MAY NOT. MMI provides definitions only. If the Oxford English Dictionary defines "ucalegon" as "neighbor whose house is on fire", and I say "I currently have forty ucalegons", it's not the Oxford English Dictionary that's claiming forty of my neighbors' houses are currently burning. In other words, "X means Y" is not the same as "if X, then Y". The former puts Y at the same power level as the rule that uses X; the latter puts it at the same power level as itself. --Warrigal
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: BUS: Re: BUS: ʇɔǝlɐıp uı uoıʇɐ ıɹɐʌ ɹǝɥʇouɐ
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> CFJ: {I am obligated to post "moo" to a Public Forum}
>> CFJ: {I am obligated to post "ooɯ" to a Public Forum}
>
> Gratuitous arguments: You just did.
Gratuitous arguments: Fulfilling an obligation doesn't cause it to
cease to exist.
OR DOES IT?
--Warrigal
DIS: Buddha
As the new Buddha of B Nomic, I request that Agora and its Ambassador formally recognize the following Refresh Proposal as having passed: http://b.nomic.net/index.php/Refresh_Proposal/nweek135_2/Wooble After all, what is B without recognition and annoying ehird? I mean, and nondairy hinge? My, what a strange typo. --Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Crufty McCruft
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Sun, 1 Mar 2009, Elliott Hird wrote: >> And our ruleset is gigantic anyway. > > March 2009 >> Current total number of rules: 133 > > November 2002 >> There are currently 309 Rules > > -Goethe. Proto: Promote all power-1 rules to the power 1.1. Enact the November 2002 ruleset at power 1. --Warrigal
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Removing Unqualified Senators
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> Proposal: Removing Unqualified Senators (AI = 2, II = 1) {
>
> Amend rule 2177 (The Senate) by adding the following text as a separate
> paragraph to the end of the rule:
>
> Any Senator can declare a Senator not a Senator without 2 Senator
> objections. Any player can declare a player who has been declared not a
> Senator a Senator with 4 Senator support.
>
> Amend rule 2177 (The Senate) by changing the text of the third paragraph to
> read:
>
> The roll call of an emergency session is the set of senators at the time the
> emergency session was called. During emergency session, the previous
> definition of senator does not apply; instead, a senator is a first-class
> player who is a member of the roll call who has not been declared not a
> Senator since the last roll call. The Assessor's report includes the roll
> call of the most recent emergency session.
> }
>
> -Yally
I suggest leaving the third paragraph mostly as it is, changing the
first paragraph to say, "A Senator is generally any first-class player
who has been registered continuously for the immediately preceding
sixty days; however, a player's status as a Senator can be otherwise
changed", and just changing the third paragraph to say "a senator is
generally . . ."
--Warrigal
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 2119
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:54 PM, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> I NoV against Warrigal for violating the power-1.7 rule 2169 by
>> violating the equation of CFJ 2119.
>>
>> (Context: the equation of CFJ 2119 is:
>> {{
>> ihope SHALL, within 30 days of this judgment becoming effective,
>> ascend in a nethack game on NAO and present evidence of this to ehird.
>> }})
>
> I contest this. I initiate a criminal case regarding this.
Why did you do that?
--signature
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2387 assigned to comex
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Sat, 21 Feb 2009, comex wrote: >> I'm interpreting "player" using the R869 definition, but "continue to >> play" using the ordinary-language definition. >> >> Arguably this is a bad idea. > > Fair enough, but how are you defining "deregister", which is the only > actual right? > > The phrase "deregister rather than continue to play" only makes sense > if "deregister" stops you from playing; deregistration as a process > is defined elsewhere, but even if that lower-powered definition is > only "guidance", the common definition of "deregister" isn't "quit" > (I'm not sure what it is if it doesn't mean to be removed from the > registration roles). "Every player SHALL eat chocolate ice cream. Every player has the right to eat strawberry ice cream rather than eat chocolate ice cream." I think this means that a player NEED NOT eat chocolate ice cream if they eat strawberry ice cream instead. --Warrigal
