Michael Slone wrote:
Zefram was a Fugitive from Justice for over nine years.
That's funny, I don't recall having any Blots when I deregistered.
Now that Blots and Stain are no longer defined by the Rules, do the
references to them in Rule 1437 mean that they still exist with their
previous
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
The Town Fountain was created through a scam. You'll have to repeal
it through another scam, if you want my vote.
The scam is that only a simple majority is required, due to the bug in
Rule 105. Actually I could set the AI of the repeal to 0.01 and
then I wouldn't
Kerim Aydin wrote:
This isn't a bug, it's a feature.
What's the advantage?
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
judge would be allowed to fall back on game custom and precedent,
i.e. use its old definition.
I just noticed that Rule 1586 explicitly prohibits such a course of
action:
# If the Rules defining some entity are repealed or amended such that
# they no longer define that
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
I argued against the repeal of R1020. I lost.
Taking a sentence from Rule 105:
# If the title is not specified, the Rulekeepor may select any title e
# sees fit.
it appears that the title of the game, being no longer specified, is up
to the Rulekeepor's discretion.
On 1/12/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it appears that the title of the game, being no longer specified, is up
to the Rulekeepor's discretion.
Archduke Agora never had a title before -- it had a name. And the
name ought to be up to the parent...
I see no reason to let this get
Grey Knight wrote:
I hereby modify the Adoption Index of this proposal to 2 yellow
smarties.
Uh oh, when did the definition Index = real number disappear from
the Ruleset. Can't pin this one on me, it wasn't there a month
before the Great Repeals (just checked).
Maud, was this part of
Kerim Aydin wrote:
And like it or not, your argument implies an ordering. Your
argument implies that Unanimity has an ordering E where E is less than
any positive rational number.
No it does not. My argument is that Unanimity is unordered with respect
to any real number. So Unanimity is
Unanimity is less than or equal to 1 is false.
Tell that to Mrs. Slocum.
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
One other aspect of Agoran common custom is that this is a legal
game before a logic/mathematical one, and we've used in the past
legal reasonableness to sidestep the more trivial paradoxes.
Especially true in the current, slimmed-down ruleset.
In legal terms, Unanimous means having the
I wrote:
And if all parties to an agreement have consented, it would
substantially abridge the rights of the Players in R101 if we
*didn't* assume prima facie that the change was valid.
Ps. It's possible, following this argument, that if *all*
indices are broken or unordered, then the
On 1/12/07, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
of selecting a reasonable ordering for the index. Who knows,
maybe even Kelly would like it.
I believe Kelly maintains that we quit playing Agora when it was
decided (*not* by me) to handwave away the Annabel issue
instead of reconstructing the
Zefram wrote:
This isn't a bug, it's a feature.
What's the advantage?
A wider range of voting tactics. Specifically, if a vote is lackluster
in turnout, you can sink it by not voting, rather than voting AGAINST,
when an AGAINST vote wouldn't be enough to sink it. Turns not voting
into an
On 1/12/07, Michael Slone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/11/07, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I *hate* the ultrapower construction, because nobody's been able to
actually construct a free ultrafilter.
Nobody's been able to construct a free ultrafilter because it's
impossible to do so.
Hope
On 1/12/07, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, I know. Hence why I prefer the polynomial ratio construction.
Are you talking about the Schmieden--Laugwitz construction (using a cofinite
filter)? Their construction produces a ring with zero divisors, and
it isn't even
an ordered ring.
--
Eris wrote:
On 1/12/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# If the Rules defining some entity are repealed or amended such that
# they no longer define that entity, then that entity along with all
# its properties shall cease to exist.
So, specifically, the numerical comparison properties of
On 1/12/07, Michael Slone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you talking about the Schmieden--Laugwitz construction (using a cofinite
filter)? Their construction produces a ring with zero divisors, and
it isn't even an ordered ring.
Hm, it seems I was mistaken.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't
On 1/12/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This rule does not define Zefram. It does define Zefram's playerhood,
but so do some other rules.
If a rule says X is a Y., under what circumstances does it then define X?
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's
Eris wrote:
On 1/12/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This rule does not define Zefram. It does define Zefram's playerhood,
but so do some other rules.
If a rule says X is a Y., under what circumstances does it then define X?
When X does not exist independently of the rules.
Taral wrote:
Zefram is a Player.
Repeal the Rule just created.
I was wondering what would happen if we created and then repealed a rule
along the lines of
This Rule defines the Earth. The Earth is a planet approximately
40 Mm in circumference, orbiting the yellow dwarf star
20 matches
Mail list logo
