DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes
Am I still a member of the Bayes Contract? What do I need to do to leave the Bayes contract? -- Dvorak Herring
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes
On 17/10/2008, Dvorak Herring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am I still a member of the Bayes Contract? What do I need to do to leave the Bayes contract? -- Dvorak Herring Consent to your parting, I think.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do I need to do to leave the Bayes contract? Consent to your parting, I think. And Wooble's.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes
On 17/10/2008, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do I need to do to leave the Bayes contract? Consent to your parting, I think. And Wooble's. After e leaves eir consent is unneeded.
DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes
I consent to any member's removal from the Baye's contract, including my own. -- Dvorak Herring
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes
On 7 Oct 2008, at 18:36, Sgeo wrote: To elaborate since you might not understand being new: Next time to the Public Forum. You sent it to a-d, but things only happen to a-b. :-P Not true. Things like pledges can happen in a-d, as I found out to my dismay.. Different kinda thing. -- ehird
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes
root wrote: Actually, not to the public forum. next time... would require an additional t. Heh, I always interpreted it as now to the public forum... -- ais523 winmail.dat
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes
On 4 Oct 2008, at 00:31, ehird wrote: On 4 Oct 2008, at 00:01, Dvorak Herring wrote: I leave the Bayes Contract. nttpf -- ehird To elaborate since you might not understand being new: Next time to the Public Forum. You sent it to a-d, but things only happen to a-b. :-P -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 8:26 AM, ehird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To elaborate since you might not understand being new: Next time to the Public Forum. Actually, not to the public forum. next time... would require an additional t. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes
On 4 Oct 2008, at 16:03, Ian Kelly wrote: On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 8:26 AM, ehird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To elaborate since you might not understand being new: Next time to the Public Forum. Actually, not to the public forum. next time... would require an additional t. -root I was thinking in analogy with TTttPF (@Dvorak: This time to the Public Forum). NttPF = Next time to [the] Public Forum Anyway, I'm kind of itching for Dvorak to leave because bayes just got itself some internal restructuring and such. :-) -- ehird
DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes
On 4 Oct 2008, at 19:22, Dvorak Herring wrote: I leave the Bayes Contract. -- Dvorak Herring Hooray! Thanks. Nothing personal, but now it can operate :-P -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 8:40 AM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wow, I didn't realise that rule existed. Game custom certainly seems to go against it (all the contracts made recently that were intended to allow arbitrary persons to join have explicitly allowed that, I think). Does this open up a scam where you can get rid of any pledge with the help of a friend, by having the friend join the pledge and then amending it with eir consent to create a get-out clause? No. That's why change by unanimous consent is based upon the minimum number of parties, not the current number of parties. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 10:28 AM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or e could create eir own bayes.py that also sends messages from [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's possible that bayes.py CANNOT act on behalf of Bayes, because 3. bayes.py is a script whose purpose is to act on behalf of Bayes in a generally autonomous way, controlled by the parties to this contract. There presently does not exist any such script controlled by all of the parties to this contract. Or you could interpret it as requiring you to allow Dvorak to control it indirectly. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 11:26 AM, ehird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also, someone fix this, seriously. I never knew this and I bet most people don't, see: all the 'can join by announcement' clauses. IIRC, the reason we added it in the first place was that most contracts (at least those at the time) were meant to be open, and people kept forgetting to include 'can join by announcement' clauses in their contracts. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes
I leave the Bayes Contract.
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 10:17 AM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Dvorak Herring
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree to the Bayes contract if I can.
--
Dvorak Herring
It seems this was successful, but unless you actually intend to work
on bayes.py, I do recommend you leave.
I intend, with the consent of all parties to the Bayes contract, to
add the following section to it:
{
8. Persons CANNOT become party to this contract by announcement. If
there are more than two parties to this contract, any party CAN leave
it by announcement.
}
--
Dvorak Herring
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes
On 4 Oct 2008, at 00:01, Dvorak Herring wrote: I leave the Bayes Contract. nttpf -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes
On 1 Oct 2008, at 05:14, Ian Kelly wrote: It categorizes adopted proposals as spam, rejected proposals as non-spam, and votes against spam? -root Bingo!
DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes voting
On 1 Oct 2008, at 13:32, Bayes wrote: Bayes votes as follows: 5732 FORx2 5733 AGAINSTx2 -- bayes 2008-10-01 13:10:18 +0100 IT WORKS!! The machine works!! Although I'm kind of surprised it agreed with my titles... Really, neither of them is a good proposal. HOWEVER. That's irrelevant. It works!
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:14 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It categorizes adopted proposals as spam, rejected proposals as non-spam, and votes against spam? The other way around. It votes FOR stuff like adopted proposals.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes
On 1 Oct 2008, at 15:10, comex wrote: On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:14 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It categorizes adopted proposals as spam, rejected proposals as non-spam, and votes against spam? The other way around. It votes FOR stuff like adopted proposals. Oh. Yeah.
DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend, with the consent of all parties to Bayes, to cause Bayes to register. I consent.
DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 6:15 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3. bayes.py is a script whose purpose is to act on behalf of Bayes in a generally autonomous way, controlled by the parties to this contract. 4. bayes.py CAN cause Bayes to act by sending a message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] How can a non-person act on behalf of a person? -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes
On 01/10/2008, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 6:15 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3. bayes.py is a script whose purpose is to act on behalf of Bayes in a generally autonomous way, controlled by the parties to this contract. 4. bayes.py CAN cause Bayes to act by sending a message [EMAIL PROTECTED] How can a non-person act on behalf of a person? Same way perlmomic acts on behalf of pnp -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes
On 01/10/2008, Dvorak Herring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree to the Bayes contract if I can. -- Dvorak Herring You cannot.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 6:15 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3. bayes.py is a script whose purpose is to act on behalf of Bayes in a generally autonomous way, controlled by the parties to this contract. 4. bayes.py CAN cause Bayes to act by sending a message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] How can a non-person act on behalf of a person? Although Goethe seems to think that non-persons unilaterally cannot send messages, scripts are definitely capable of sending messages on their own, and I don't know why we should assume the legal fiction that they can't. Can you suggest a better wording? The PerlNomic clause: 4. The PerlNomic Partnership shall act by using the mechanisms of the PerlNomic game to send messages to the appropriate Agoran fora. This is the only mechanism by which the PerlNomic Partnership may act. also requires that some non-person (the mechanisms of the PerlNomic game) be legally able to send messages. Which reminds me... Bayes is, in fact, the realization of my comment in that discussion: Heh, maybe I should set up a script that plays on behalf of a partnership without any human intervention, voting on proposals in some odd manner (FOR if it contains an odd number of lines or the word repeal). Even better if the partnership were, say, elected CotC... although it's mostly ehird's code. While I don't think it's going to try being the CotC anytime soon, it has a highly interesting method of voting on proposals. Can you guess what it is? Now, when person X makes the PNP distribute a set of proposals, and a cron job makes Bayes vote on them, who is the Executor of the voting message? X, ehird, me? ehird owns the server on which bayes.py runs, but I have a shell account there with permission to modify it (well, will be able to tomorrow). I think we should just prohibit non-first-class persons from performing dependent actions. There are no circumstances I am aware of in which they need to perform them...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, comex wrote: On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 6:15 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3. bayes.py is a script whose purpose is to act on behalf of Bayes in a generally autonomous way, controlled by the parties to this contract. 4. bayes.py CAN cause Bayes to act by sending a message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] How can a non-person act on behalf of a person? Although Goethe seems to think that non-persons unilaterally cannot send messages, scripts are definitely capable of sending messages on their own, and I don't know why we should assume the legal fiction that they can't. Can you suggest a better wording? The PerlNomic clause: I didn't say that they could not send messages, I just said that you could always point to a person behind the non-person who triggered the sending. Good luck and proving me wrong with bayes, very interesting! -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:27 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: although it's mostly ehird's code. While I don't think it's going to try being the CotC anytime soon, it has a highly interesting method of voting on proposals. Can you guess what it is? It categorizes adopted proposals as spam, rejected proposals as non-spam, and votes against spam? -root
