Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (With apologies to the Horton) Vote-swap scheme.
On 11 August 2011 06:04, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote: On 08/10/2011 11:52 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 21:41, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote: On 08/10/2011 11:24 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: I destroy my copy of this Promise. I'm not sure this actually works. I vaguely remember an attempt to fix this problem with legislation, which I think passed, but... R2166 (power 2): An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by announcement R2337 (power 3): Creating and cashing promises is secured with power threshold 3; any other modifications to promise holdings are secured with power threshold 2. 2166 alone implies you can destroy a promise you hold. 2337 alone implies you can't. R1030 puts rule power at higher precedence than If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for determining precedence relations which implies that R2337's attempt to only secure at power 2 basically doesn't work. No, secured with power 2 means cannot be done except as allowed by rules with power 2 or greater. This creates no conflict, so precedence is irrelevant. All right, I'll buy that. Given that the promise, as written, seems not to work (or does it?) - it certainly doesn't do what it was supposed to, and has a typo in it which renders it malformed. Would it be an idea for the Horton to attempt to destroy all copies, and then I'll re-issue fixed versions. Arkady
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (With apologies to the Horton) Vote-swap scheme.
On 11 August 2011 05:16, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote: On 08/09/2011 09:35 AM, Arkady English wrote: (Note: I believe this means I create 21 copies, and transfer one to each of these players: Wooble Benu ais523 BobTHJ Droowl ehird Flameshadowxeroshin G. Gondolier Math321 Murphy omd Pavitra Roujo scshunt Tanner L. Swett Tiger Turiski Walker woggle Yally ) H. Registrar, can you confirm this? Yes, this list is correct. -- Charles Walker
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (With apologies to the Horton) Vote-swap scheme.
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 23:16 -0500, Pavitra wrote: H. Registrar, can you confirm this? More interestingly, what happens if the list's wrong? -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (With apologies to the Horton) Vote-swap scheme.
On 08/10/2011 11:23 PM, ais523 wrote: On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 23:16 -0500, Pavitra wrote: H. Registrar, can you confirm this? More interestingly, what happens if the list's wrong? The list was only flavor text. If the given list is wrong, then it actually platonically happened according to the right list.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (With apologies to the Horton) Vote-swap scheme.
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 23:25 -0500, Pavitra wrote: On 08/10/2011 11:23 PM, ais523 wrote: On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 23:16 -0500, Pavitra wrote: H. Registrar, can you confirm this? More interestingly, what happens if the list's wrong? The list was only flavor text. If the given list is wrong, then it actually platonically happened according to the right list. But we only allow conventions like each player as abbreviations. An abbreviation can't be unambiguous if its user doesn't know what it's an abbreviation for, right? -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (With apologies to the Horton) Vote-swap scheme.
Long custom (arguably contradicted by long precedent) is that it can. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 11, 2011, at 12:29 AM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 23:25 -0500, Pavitra wrote: On 08/10/2011 11:23 PM, ais523 wrote: On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 23:16 -0500, Pavitra wrote: H. Registrar, can you confirm this? More interestingly, what happens if the list's wrong? The list was only flavor text. If the given list is wrong, then it actually platonically happened according to the right list. But we only allow conventions like each player as abbreviations. An abbreviation can't be unambiguous if its user doesn't know what it's an abbreviation for, right? -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (With apologies to the Horton) Vote-swap scheme.
On 08/10/2011 11:29 PM, ais523 wrote: On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 23:25 -0500, Pavitra wrote: On 08/10/2011 11:23 PM, ais523 wrote: On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 23:16 -0500, Pavitra wrote: H. Registrar, can you confirm this? More interestingly, what happens if the list's wrong? The list was only flavor text. If the given list is wrong, then it actually platonically happened according to the right list. But we only allow conventions like each player as abbreviations. An abbreviation can't be unambiguous if its user doesn't know what it's an abbreviation for, right? Informal (non-explicitly-rule-supported) conditional actions are commonplace; consider for instance this recent example: I cash the promise Arkady English created just now, specifying the following action: calling a CFJ on the statement I am Arkady English. If Arkady English did not just now call a CFJ on the statement I am Arkady English, then I call a CFJ on that statement. The author knew that exactly one CFJ was called as a result of that paragraph, but not which one. Should the entire thing be therefore thrown out?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (With apologies to the Horton) Vote-swap scheme.
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 21:41, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote: On 08/10/2011 11:24 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: I destroy my copy of this Promise. I'm not sure this actually works. I vaguely remember an attempt to fix this problem with legislation, which I think passed, but... R2166 (power 2): An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by announcement R2337 (power 3): Creating and cashing promises is secured with power threshold 3; any other modifications to promise holdings are secured with power threshold 2. 2166 alone implies you can destroy a promise you hold. 2337 alone implies you can't. R1030 puts rule power at higher precedence than If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for determining precedence relations which implies that R2337's attempt to only secure at power 2 basically doesn't work. No, secured with power 2 means cannot be done except as allowed by rules with power 2 or greater. This creates no conflict, so precedence is irrelevant.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (With apologies to the Horton) Vote-swap scheme.
On 08/10/2011 11:52 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 21:41, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote: On 08/10/2011 11:24 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: I destroy my copy of this Promise. I'm not sure this actually works. I vaguely remember an attempt to fix this problem with legislation, which I think passed, but... R2166 (power 2): An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by announcement R2337 (power 3): Creating and cashing promises is secured with power threshold 3; any other modifications to promise holdings are secured with power threshold 2. 2166 alone implies you can destroy a promise you hold. 2337 alone implies you can't. R1030 puts rule power at higher precedence than If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for determining precedence relations which implies that R2337's attempt to only secure at power 2 basically doesn't work. No, secured with power 2 means cannot be done except as allowed by rules with power 2 or greater. This creates no conflict, so precedence is irrelevant. All right, I'll buy that.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (With apologies to the Horton) Vote-swap scheme.
On 08/09/2011 09:50 AM, Pavitra wrote:
On 08/09/2011 09:35 AM, Arkady English wrote:
I create a number of copies of the following promise equal to one less
the number of First-Class players of Agora:
Conditions: The casher, on cashing this promise, creates a promise
text: { If I have supported or objected to an action, I retract my
support or objection for an action. I support or object the action as
specified by the casher. This support/objection may not be withdrawn.
OR I withdraw any votes I have made on a specified proposal, and use
all my votes in the manner specified by the casher. These votes may
not be withdrawn. }; I have not already withdrawn my
vote/support/objection due to a promise with identical text.
Text: I have supported or objected to an action, I retract my support
or objection for an action. I support or object the action as
specified by the casher. This support/objection may not be withdrawn.
OR I withdraw any votes I have made on a specified proposal, and use
all my votes in the manner specified by the casher. These votes may
not be withdrawn.
Unfortunately this won't quite work the way you want. The text is
missing a leading if, and more critically, may not be withdrawn
doesn't work at all.
The condition of a promise is a true/false predicate that is evaluated
at the time of cashing. It's not in general able to impose ongoing
obligations. Similarly, the text of the promise is simply treated as
though the promise's author had sent that text in a public message. It
can only trigger by-announcement actions, and only at the time it's cashed.
For a model of how to accomplish the sort of thing you're trying to get
at, I recommend you look at Vote Issue Series G1 and G1 vote
guarantee. (Note that these two promises go together; they are
collectively one complete example of how to do it.)
Actually, on a closer reading, I believe that none of these CAN ever be
cashed. In the absence of capitals, I read may not to mean SHALL
NOT, and since support, objections, and votes always MAY be withdrawn
(though not always CAN), the conditions will always evaluate to false.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (With apologies to the Horton) Vote-swap scheme.
On 9 August 2011 15:50, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/09/2011 09:35 AM, Arkady English wrote:
I create a number of copies of the following promise equal to one less
the number of First-Class players of Agora:
Conditions: The casher, on cashing this promise, creates a promise
text: { If I have supported or objected to an action, I retract my
support or objection for an action. I support or object the action as
specified by the casher. This support/objection may not be withdrawn.
OR I withdraw any votes I have made on a specified proposal, and use
all my votes in the manner specified by the casher. These votes may
not be withdrawn. }; I have not already withdrawn my
vote/support/objection due to a promise with identical text.
Text: I have supported or objected to an action, I retract my support
or objection for an action. I support or object the action as
specified by the casher. This support/objection may not be withdrawn.
OR I withdraw any votes I have made on a specified proposal, and use
all my votes in the manner specified by the casher. These votes may
not be withdrawn.
Unfortunately this won't quite work the way you want. The text is
missing a leading if, and more critically, may not be withdrawn
doesn't work at all.
The condition of a promise is a true/false predicate that is evaluated
at the time of cashing. It's not in general able to impose ongoing
obligations. Similarly, the text of the promise is simply treated as
though the promise's author had sent that text in a public message. It
can only trigger by-announcement actions, and only at the time it's cashed.
For a model of how to accomplish the sort of thing you're trying to get
at, I recommend you look at Vote Issue Series G1 and G1 vote
guarantee. (Note that these two promises go together; they are
collectively one complete example of how to do it.)
Darn ... I'm not used to the way highlighting works in IE (it always
seems to skip the first word...I've done this a lot). I guess the
promises just about work if they're timed correctly (i.e. right at the
end of the voting period).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (With apologies to the Horton) Vote-swap scheme.
On 9 August 2011 15:54, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/09/2011 09:50 AM, Pavitra wrote:
On 08/09/2011 09:35 AM, Arkady English wrote:
I create a number of copies of the following promise equal to one less
the number of First-Class players of Agora:
Conditions: The casher, on cashing this promise, creates a promise
text: { If I have supported or objected to an action, I retract my
support or objection for an action. I support or object the action as
specified by the casher. This support/objection may not be withdrawn.
OR I withdraw any votes I have made on a specified proposal, and use
all my votes in the manner specified by the casher. These votes may
not be withdrawn. }; I have not already withdrawn my
vote/support/objection due to a promise with identical text.
Text: I have supported or objected to an action, I retract my support
or objection for an action. I support or object the action as
specified by the casher. This support/objection may not be withdrawn.
OR I withdraw any votes I have made on a specified proposal, and use
all my votes in the manner specified by the casher. These votes may
not be withdrawn.
Unfortunately this won't quite work the way you want. The text is
missing a leading if, and more critically, may not be withdrawn
doesn't work at all.
The condition of a promise is a true/false predicate that is evaluated
at the time of cashing. It's not in general able to impose ongoing
obligations. Similarly, the text of the promise is simply treated as
though the promise's author had sent that text in a public message. It
can only trigger by-announcement actions, and only at the time it's cashed.
For a model of how to accomplish the sort of thing you're trying to get
at, I recommend you look at Vote Issue Series G1 and G1 vote
guarantee. (Note that these two promises go together; they are
collectively one complete example of how to do it.)
Actually, on a closer reading, I believe that none of these CAN ever be
cashed. In the absence of capitals, I read may not to mean SHALL
NOT, and since support, objections, and votes always MAY be withdrawn
(though not always CAN), the conditions will always evaluate to false.
None of the conditions include the words may not, so I think the
conditions are probably alright? Also, how easy is it to correct the
typo of the missing If?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (With apologies to the Horton) Vote-swap scheme.
On 08/09/2011 10:03 AM, Arkady English wrote:
On 9 August 2011 15:54, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/09/2011 09:50 AM, Pavitra wrote:
On 08/09/2011 09:35 AM, Arkady English wrote:
I create a number of copies of the following promise equal to one less
the number of First-Class players of Agora:
Conditions: The casher, on cashing this promise, creates a promise
text: { If I have supported or objected to an action, I retract my
support or objection for an action. I support or object the action as
specified by the casher. This support/objection may not be withdrawn.
OR I withdraw any votes I have made on a specified proposal, and use
all my votes in the manner specified by the casher. These votes may
not be withdrawn. }; I have not already withdrawn my
vote/support/objection due to a promise with identical text.
Text: I have supported or objected to an action, I retract my support
or objection for an action. I support or object the action as
specified by the casher. This support/objection may not be withdrawn.
OR I withdraw any votes I have made on a specified proposal, and use
all my votes in the manner specified by the casher. These votes may
not be withdrawn.
Unfortunately this won't quite work the way you want. The text is
missing a leading if, and more critically, may not be withdrawn
doesn't work at all.
The condition of a promise is a true/false predicate that is evaluated
at the time of cashing. It's not in general able to impose ongoing
obligations. Similarly, the text of the promise is simply treated as
though the promise's author had sent that text in a public message. It
can only trigger by-announcement actions, and only at the time it's cashed.
For a model of how to accomplish the sort of thing you're trying to get
at, I recommend you look at Vote Issue Series G1 and G1 vote
guarantee. (Note that these two promises go together; they are
collectively one complete example of how to do it.)
Actually, on a closer reading, I believe that none of these CAN ever be
cashed. In the absence of capitals, I read may not to mean SHALL
NOT, and since support, objections, and votes always MAY be withdrawn
(though not always CAN), the conditions will always evaluate to false.
None of the conditions include the words may not, so I think the
conditions are probably alright? Also, how easy is it to correct the
typo of the missing If?
*rereads*
Right, I'm with you again now.
Okay, I agree that it's cashable. But there's a catastrophic bug in it
that I think I'd rather exploit than explain.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (With apologies to the Horton) Vote-swap scheme.
On 08/09/2011 10:03 AM, Arkady English wrote: Also, how easy is it to correct the typo of the missing If? Right, forgot to answer this. There's no mechanism for amending promises. You'd have to issue a new set of promises, and maybe try to get the old ones destroyed.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (With apologies to the Horton) Vote-swap scheme.
On 9 August 2011 16:11, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/09/2011 10:03 AM, Arkady English wrote:
On 9 August 2011 15:54, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/09/2011 09:50 AM, Pavitra wrote:
On 08/09/2011 09:35 AM, Arkady English wrote:
I create a number of copies of the following promise equal to one less
the number of First-Class players of Agora:
Conditions: The casher, on cashing this promise, creates a promise
text: { If I have supported or objected to an action, I retract my
support or objection for an action. I support or object the action as
specified by the casher. This support/objection may not be withdrawn.
OR I withdraw any votes I have made on a specified proposal, and use
all my votes in the manner specified by the casher. These votes may
not be withdrawn. }; I have not already withdrawn my
vote/support/objection due to a promise with identical text.
Text: I have supported or objected to an action, I retract my support
or objection for an action. I support or object the action as
specified by the casher. This support/objection may not be withdrawn.
OR I withdraw any votes I have made on a specified proposal, and use
all my votes in the manner specified by the casher. These votes may
not be withdrawn.
Unfortunately this won't quite work the way you want. The text is
missing a leading if, and more critically, may not be withdrawn
doesn't work at all.
The condition of a promise is a true/false predicate that is evaluated
at the time of cashing. It's not in general able to impose ongoing
obligations. Similarly, the text of the promise is simply treated as
though the promise's author had sent that text in a public message. It
can only trigger by-announcement actions, and only at the time it's cashed.
For a model of how to accomplish the sort of thing you're trying to get
at, I recommend you look at Vote Issue Series G1 and G1 vote
guarantee. (Note that these two promises go together; they are
collectively one complete example of how to do it.)
Actually, on a closer reading, I believe that none of these CAN ever be
cashed. In the absence of capitals, I read may not to mean SHALL
NOT, and since support, objections, and votes always MAY be withdrawn
(though not always CAN), the conditions will always evaluate to false.
None of the conditions include the words may not, so I think the
conditions are probably alright? Also, how easy is it to correct the
typo of the missing If?
*rereads*
Right, I'm with you again now.
Okay, I agree that it's cashable. But there's a catastrophic bug in it
that I think I'd rather exploit than explain.
I think this sums up my comments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lytZ7fYOlgU (5 second video)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (With apologies to the Horton) Vote-swap scheme.
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 08:11, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote: *rereads* Right, I'm with you again now. Okay, I agree that it's cashable. But there's a catastrophic bug in it that I think I'd rather exploit than explain. I'd love to exploit it too, except I think the promise is effectively unusable. When the promise is cashed, Arkady sends a message with the text I have supported or objected to an action, I retract my support or objection for an action. I support or object the action as specified by the casher. This support/objection may not be withdrawn. OR I withdraw any votes I have made on a specified proposal, and use all my votes in the manner specified by the casher. These votes may not be withdrawn. The OR makes it hopelessly ambiguous at best. -scshunt
