DIS: Re: BUS: Open letter

root wrote: I've been around since 1998 -- 9 years! -- but how often do I get noticed? Twice in my whole life I've been invoked, and one of those times was a full two years before I hatched, so you can't really say that it counts! Let's face it, around here I'm appreciated about as much as one

DIS: proto: renumeration

proto-proposal: renumeration AI: 2 {{{ Amend rule 1023 by deleting the item (a) The term "number" shall mean "real number". [Each instance of "number" in the ruleset either is discussing a value that is inherently a natural number or is explicitly qualified as "rational" or some other sub

DIS: proto: simplify veto

proto-proposal: simplify veto AI: 2 {{{ Amend rule 2019 to read The Speaker may veto an Ordinary Proposal in its voting period by announcement. Quorum for a vetoed proposal is positive infinity, other rules governing quorum notwithstanding. The Speaker may rubberstamp a

Re: DIS: proto: Agoran arms in a rule

On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 07:25:05PM +0100, Zefram wrote: > Ian Kelly wrote: > >What do you think about effects such as this one, from proposal 4453? > > I guess that qualifies as a Legislative Order, so at least it's something > that categorically does have defined persistence. I'm not happy about

Re: DIS: proto: B Agreement

On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 09:20:07PM -0400, comex wrote: > On Monday 18 June 2007, Ian Kelly wrote: > > Doesn't play nicely with Limited Partnerships, Take Fifteen, unless > > the Protectorate also happens to be a Partnership (in which case it > > allegedly can register anyway) -- both because it's n

Re: DIS: proto: renumeration

Zefram wrote: Amend rule 1023 by deleting the item (a) The term "number" shall mean "real number". [Each instance of "number" in the ruleset either is discussing a value that is inherently a natural number or is explicitly qualified as "rational" or some other subset of the real numbers.

Re: DIS: proto: renumeration

Ed Murphy wrote: >Rule 2136 (Contests) does not explicitly specify that scores are >real, not to mention whatever future rules might be adopted. Score is the "number of points possessed". To me this is inherently a real number. If we defined points to be quanta then score would be inherently int

Re: DIS: proto: renumeration

On 6/19/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Never mind all the rules that carry out mathematics without using "number", in which case R1023(a) may not apply anyway. I suggest amending it to "All mathematics is restricted to real numbers unless explicitly specified otherwise". You mean `

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Open letter

On 6/19/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: root wrote: > I've been around since 1998 -- 9 years! -- but how often do I get > noticed? Twice in my whole life I've been invoked, and one of those > times was a full two years before I hatched, so you can't really say > that it counts! Let's

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Open letter

Ian Kelly wrote: >That's not even close to what the Registrar's report claims. The historical matter in the Registrar's report is not entirely accurate. Most obviously, there's an alleged deregistration by Writ that predates the enactment of rule 1789. Rectification awaits more complete mail logs

DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: honorless degrees

On 6/19/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: {{{ Repeal rule 2092. [We've had this rule for two years and never awarded an honorary degree. It's deadweight.] }}} There was an attempt when the rule was first created, but it failed quorum. Perhaps it's time to try again. -root

Re: DIS: CFJ 1684

On 6/19/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Taral wrote: >I still have no idea about this CFJ... I suggest that you examine the purported judge's arguments in CFJ 1623. You're not necessarily bound to judge the same, because if you judge to the contrary then CFJ 1623 hasn't really been judged.

Re: DIS: CFJ 1684

Taral wrote: >That's not my point. I have no record of the numerical assignment, so >I don't know what the statement is, nor what arguments were submitted. root called it: |> You know, I'm amazed that three folks didn't appeal the original |> (self-interested) judgements that said partnerships co

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Open letter

On 6/19/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ian Kelly wrote: >That's not even close to what the Registrar's report claims. The historical matter in the Registrar's report is not entirely accurate. Most obviously, there's an alleged deregistration by Writ that predates the enactment of rule 178

Re: DIS: CFJ 1684

On 6/19/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't think comex ever explicitly assigned the number. That would be an implicit result of entering it into the CFJ database. You were then assigned as judge thus: |I assign CFJ 1684 to Eris. Eris is now turned. If the CotC never explicitly li

Re: DIS: CFJ 1684

Ian Kelly wrote: >If the CotC never explicitly linked the index 1684 to any particular >CFJ, can the assignment be considered successful? I think it can. CFJ numbers are unregulated, but we all agree on a single numbering authority. In context, there is no ambiguity in the meaning of "CFJ 1684".

Re: DIS: CFJ 1684

On 6/19/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ian Kelly wrote: >If the CotC never explicitly linked the index 1684 to any particular >CFJ, can the assignment be considered successful? I think it can. CFJ numbers are unregulated, but we all agree on a single numbering authority. In context, the

DIS: Re: BUS: Primo Protectorate

Roger Hicks wrote: >Primo Corporation hereby becomes a Protectorate of Agora. Ho ho. And it's a player of B Nomic too? InterNomic, even in its recursive form, is beginning to look tame. -zefram

DIS: Re: BUS: Primo Shares

On 6/19/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: root and Eris have been offered shares by Murphy. According to the newly revised section 19 of the Primo Corporation charter, by accepting those shares (if they chose to do so) they become party to the Primo Corporation agreement. That's an int

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Primo Shares

My interpretation was that since there is no time-limit for accepting shares that have been offered, the offer is still on the table. BobTHJ On 6/19/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/19/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > root and Eris have been offered shares by Murphy. A

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Primo Protectorate

This might allow something like the following: psuedo-proposal AI 2 { Repeal all rules of the Protectorate Agora with Power 3 or greater } BobTHJ On 6/19/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/19/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Roger Hicks wrote: > >Primo Corporation hereby bec

DIS: Re: BUS: proposals

[Moves the PT reporting requirement into the PT rule. Incidentally removes the "Threat" item, which we're not using, from rule 1377. Also gives a more accurate overall description of the Herald.] I was a bit confused by the Threat thing anyway. Was that a hold-over from some past mechanic?

DIS: Helping Primo Help You

It is worth noting (for those of you who are not subscribed to the Corporate Forum) that Primo Corporation contains the following clause in Section 23 of its charter: { Any Player of Agora who spends Voting Credits to increase the VLOP of Primo Corporation shall receive 10 shares for each VC spent

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Primo Protectorate

Ian Kelly wrote: > Agora hereby submits to Agora as its benevolent protector. I don't think that's enough to make Agora qualify to be a protectorate: it also needs a mechanism for Agora to change Agora's rules arbitrarily, which the ordinary proposal process probably doesn't count for. It wou

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Primo Protectorate

On 6/19/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This might allow something like the following: psuedo-proposal AI 2 { Repeal all rules of the Protectorate Agora with Power 3 or greater } I don't think so; rule 2140 is pretty clear. So then the question becomes whether my proposal is suffic

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposals

Roger Hicks wrote: >I was a bit confused by the Threat thing anyway. Was that a hold-over from >some past mechanic? No, it was just a bit of wordplay. -zefram

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Primo Protectorate

On 6/19/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ian Kelly wrote: > Agora hereby submits to Agora as its benevolent protector. I don't think that's enough to make Agora qualify to be a protectorate: it also needs a mechanism for Agora to change Agora's rules arbitrarily, which the ordinary prop

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Primo Protectorate

On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 09:00:54PM +0100, Zefram wrote: > Roger Hicks wrote: > >Primo Corporation hereby becomes a Protectorate of Agora. > > Ho ho. And it's a player of B Nomic too? InterNomic, even in its > recursive form, is beginning to look tame. As far as I know, Primo Corporation isn't a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Primo Protectorate

On 6/19/07, bd_ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: As far as I know, Primo Corporation isn't a member of B Nomic - yet. More importantly, B Nomic's rules require players to be able to pass a turing test, and have a working e-mail address - does Primo Corporation pass these requirements? Primo just

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Primo Protectorate

On 6/19/07, bd_ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 09:00:54PM +0100, Zefram wrote: > Roger Hicks wrote: > >Primo Corporation hereby becomes a Protectorate of Agora. > > Ho ho. And it's a player of B Nomic too? InterNomic, even in its > recursive form, is beginning to look tame.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Primo Protectorate

Ian Kelly wrote: >The exact wording is: "It also must allow Agora unrestricted access to >make changes to its ruleset." There's no restriction on what an AI-3 >proposal can do The rules of Agora have little concept of Agora as a distinct entity, and in particular not as an entity capable of effec

BUS: Re: DIS: CFJ 1684

Zefram wrote: > comex wrote: > > I issue a Timing Order to the CotC to recuse the judge of CFJ 1684 ASAP > > (per R408). > > I also issue a Timing Order to the CotC to recuse the judge of CFJ 1684 > ASAP (per R408). vii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: CFJ 1684

On Tuesday 19 June 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Zefram wrote: > > comex wrote: > > > I issue a Timing Order to the CotC to recuse the judge of CFJ 1684 > > > ASAP (per R408). > > > > I also issue a Timing Order to the CotC to recuse the judge of CFJ > > 1684 ASAP (per R408). > >vii. Every per

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Primo Protectorate

On 6/19/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ian Kelly wrote: >The exact wording is: "It also must allow Agora unrestricted access to >make changes to its ruleset." There's no restriction on what an AI-3 >proposal can do The rules of Agora have little concept of Agora as a distinct entity, and

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 1684

On 6/19/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I take significant exception to the unaddressed assumption in CFJ 1623 that the definition of "person" to be used is a legal one. Rule 754(3) states: "Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts, and not addressed by previous provisions o

BUS: Re: DIS: CFJ 1684

comex wrote: > So is taking the action for me a penalization? It might be, but I meant the punishment if you didn't follow the order (e.g. multiple timing orders to do the same thing result in at most one penalty for not performing the task). It's quite possible that the subsequent orders are i

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: CFJ 1684

On 6/19/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: comex wrote: > So is taking the action for me a penalization? It might be, but I meant the punishment if you didn't follow the order (e.g. multiple timing orders to do the same thing result in at most one penalty for not performing the task).

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 1684

On 6/19/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I call for appeal of CFJ 1684. Not because I necessarily disagree with its reasonableness, but as it conflicts with the (now possibly non-existent judgments of) 1622 and 1623. A Court of Appeals on a CFJ out of the self- referential loop is th

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 1684

On 6/19/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So, I'm confused here. Are we to go back and rewrite history, declaring that the various partnerships were never able to register? Or are partnerships no longer persons from this point on? Since the issue was resolved by a subsequent CFJ rather

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Primo Protectorate

Ian Kelly wrote: >Then the Protectorate rule is broken. An adopted AI=2 proposal is >also not Agora, which means that it cannot make arbitrary changes to >Protectorates. It depends on the interpretation in the would-be protectorate. I was disconcerted to see the wording of the rule in B Nomic, w

BUS: Re: DIS: CFJ 1684

root wrote: > It seems to me that performing the action would satisfy one of the > orders, but the target could still be penalized at most once for not > satisfying the remaining orders. If so, this is obviously broken. Actually, here's a counterargument to it being broken (Rule 1794/8)(d):

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 1684

root wrote: > Since the issue was resolved by a subsequent CFJ rather than an > appeal, I would argue for the latter in this case. Except that the opposite interpretation has since then been directly coded into law, by Proposal 4977 which created Rule 2145, so the CFJ is in fact out of date, prov

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Primo Protectorate

On 6/19/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > presumably the rule >was voted upon at some point, yes? I think you've stretched the concept of player action beyond any meaningfulness. Perhaps. As I said, that scenario is questionable. I have

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 1684

On 6/19/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: root wrote: > Since the issue was resolved by a subsequent CFJ rather than an > appeal, I would argue for the latter in this case. Except that the opposite interpretation has since then been directly coded into law, by Proposal 4977 which creat

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 1684

root wrote: > CFJ 1684 is a more recent judgment, and so we > should abide by that precedent rather than by the older ones. Maybe I'm missing something. Isn't the idea of precedent that judges should be guided by past judgments, and where two independent judgments conflict, a higher court takes

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 1684

root wrote: > Rule 2145 merely ascribes some properties to persons created by > agreements. It doesn't itself allow for such persons to be created in > the first place. It explicitly defines non-natural persons, which strongly implies that they exist in the eyes of the rules. At the very least,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 1684

On 6/19/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: root wrote: > Rule 2145 merely ascribes some properties to persons created by > agreements. It doesn't itself allow for such persons to be created in > the first place. It explicitly defines non-natural persons, No, it does not. It explicit

DIS: Re: BUS: Preserve the Partnerships

On 6/19/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I hereby submit the following proposal titled "Preserve the Partnerships" with an AI of 1: { Amend R2145 by appending the paragraph: {{ Agora recognizes an agreement that implicitly or explicitly assigns its rights, obligations, and responsibili

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 1684

On 6/19/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I wrote: >I call for appeal of Eris's judgement of CFJ 1684, Additional argument for appeal: Eris's judgement is inconsistent with the judgement on CFJ 1671, concerning the registration (and so implicitly the personhood) of Second System Effect. Ho

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Preserve the Partnerships

Indeed, it would be redundant...but it would have add some stability to non-natural persons, allowing them to be based upon more than a judges interpretation of the word "person". BobTHJ This would just be useless text if the final judicial outcome is in favor of Partnerships anyway. Couldn'

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 1684

root wrote: > No, it does not. [R2145] explicitly defines partnerships. Sorry, no. The second sentence states that partnerships are created by agreements, and by the first sentence, those partnerships are in the set of non-natural persons. Since it's legal to make these partnerships, it's poss

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 1684

On 6/19/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sorry, no. The second sentence states that partnerships are created by agreements, and by the first sentence, those partnerships are in the set of non-natural persons. Since it's legal to make these partnerships, it's possible for the set of no

Re: DIS: proto: Agoran arms in a rule

Zefram wrote: Kerim Aydin wrote: Well, if a proposal can deem something that's not defined/regulated, I don't think it can, in any lasting fashion. It was Michael who argued that deeming constitutes an instantaneous change to the persistent game state. More accurately, I argued that a propo

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 1684

On 6/19/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ha! :) *ahem* CHAOS AND DISORDER! YAY! - Her Most Chaotic Divinity, The Goddess Eris

DIS: Re: BUS: Preserve the Partnerships

Yuk. On 6/19/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I hereby submit the following proposal titled "Preserve the Partnerships" with an AI of 1: { Amend R2145 by appending the paragraph: {{ Agora recognizes an agreement that implicitly or explicitly assigns its rights, obligations, and respon

DIS: Proto-prop: Make B Nomic a limited partnership

PROTO-PROP: [[ This proposal (to be submitted in B Nomic) is intended to define B Nomic as a limited partnership, and a non-natural player of Agora Nomic. Until certain issues (such as whether limited partnerships existed in the first place) are resolved in agora, and agoran proposal 5038 (or simil

Re: DIS: Proto-prop: Make B Nomic a limited partnership

On Tuesday 19 June 2007, bd_ wrote: > 13. There is no clause 13. Any player claiming or implying otherwise on > a public forum shall receive the property "Unbeliever". FYI: "Unbeliever" is currently defined another way in the B Nomic Ruleset, although not as a property. signature.asc Descrip

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Primo Shares

BobTHJ wrote: My interpretation was that since there is no time-limit for accepting shares that have been offered, the offer is still on the table. BobTHJ On 6/19/07, * Ian Kelly* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: On 6/19/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: CFJ 1684

comex wrote: On Tuesday 19 June 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote: Zefram wrote: comex wrote: I issue a Timing Order to the CotC to recuse the judge of CFJ 1684 ASAP (per R408). I also issue a Timing Order to the CotC to recuse the judge of CFJ 1684 ASAP (per R408). vii. Every person has the r

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 1684

root wrote: On 6/19/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I call for appeal of CFJ 1684. Not because I necessarily disagree with its reasonableness, but as it conflicts with the (now possibly non-existent judgments of) 1622 and 1623. A Court of Appeals on a CFJ out of the self- refere

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Preserve the Partnerships

root wrote: On 6/19/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I hereby submit the following proposal titled "Preserve the Partnerships" with an AI of 1: { Amend R2145 by appending the paragraph: {{ Agora recognizes an agreement that implicitly or explicitly assigns its rights, obligations, an

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Primo Shares

On 6/19/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: BobTHJ wrote: > My interpretation was that since there is no time-limit for accepting > shares that have been offered, the offer is still on the table. > > BobTHJ > > On 6/19/07, * Ian Kelly* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposals

On 6/19/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: No, it was just a bit of wordplay. I'm fairly certain it was also a historical reference. -- Maud

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 1684

On 6/19/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It can (if the Board of Appeals agrees) accomplish the reversal of the judgement of CFJ 1684. Not because I disagree with its reasonableness either, but I find the judgements of CFJs 1622 and 1623 to also be reasonable, and heavily favored by the