root wrote:
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
root wrote:
I disagree with both of you. The sqrt(2) shares that I transferred
to you were created by charter-specified methods (IPO or CFO salary);
and I didn't just offer them, I flat-out transferred them according
to the old section 19.
Yes, I agree with you on that count, but section 19
Ed Murphy wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Regulate ID numbers
Good generalisation.
-zefram
On 6/20/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
root wrote:
I disagree with both of you. The sqrt(2) shares that I transferred
to you were created by charter-specified methods (IPO or CFO salary);
and I didn't just offer them, I flat-out transferred them according
to the old section 19.
comex wrote:
I submit the following proposal:
No title.
Whereas Rule 955 is titled Determining the Will of Agora,
Rule titles have no legal force. I don't think you can claim that Agora
has a will based on this.
-zefram
On 6/20/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
comex wrote:
I submit the following proposal:
No title.
Whereas Rule 955 is titled Determining the Will of Agora,
Rule titles have no legal force. I don't think you can claim that Agora
has a will based on this.
The rule body uses similar
Ian Kelly wrote:
I *do*
think that the existence of partnerships is damaging to the game.
How so? There are certainly a couple of problems with giving partnerships
the same status as natural persons, but we've implemented restrictions
Murphy wrote:
* I would still be Speaker; OscarMeyr (I think) would still be IADoP
Speaker transitions are also pragmatic by R402, and this
one wasn't challenged within a week, either. What happens is probably
that suddenly (upon the judgement of 1684? Upon it being sustained?)
it turns
Section 19 is broken, in that it attempts to contradict
reality. Neither section 19 nor the issue that created it
did anything to deal directly with shares already in the
possession of non-shareholders.
Reality is that Primo Corp shares are fictitious, and none of us own
any. They're
Zefram wrote:
But if HP2 was never a player then e was categorically incapable of being
speaker. R103, imposing that restriction, takes precedence over R402.
Does this mean that cutoff for challenges, in the protection of
the proposal system, is outweighed any time the challenge is related to
On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
Again, that may be the interest of the majority of the players, but
the players are not the game.
Are you sure about that :)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On 6/20/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
I *do*
think that the existence of partnerships is damaging to the game.
How so? There are certainly a couple of problems with giving partnerships
the same status as natural
On 6/20/07, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
Again, that may be the interest of the majority of the players, but
the players are not the game.
Are you sure about that :)
I certainly don't think of the game as being merely the set of its
players.
Just for reference, Employment Notices are governed by sections 16, 17, and
18 of the Primo Corporation charter. Any player who is not a Primo Corp
Officer is eligible for employment.
The charter can be found here:
http://groups.google.com/group/primo-corporation/web/primo-corporation---charter
On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
* Abuse VCs. A player who controls a partnership can use the
partnership's VCs to raise eir own voting limit, and eir own VCs to
raise the partnership's voting limit, at a cost of 1 VC per vote. A
player outside of a partnership must resort to
root wrote:
Increase the power of Rule 2142 to 2, and amend it by
replacing the text 1.1 with 2.
As per my last post, has it occurred to anyone that limiting VC
gains to ordinary proposals, which then can increase the ability
to pass ordinary proposals without bounds, is a *tad* too much
On 6/20/07, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frankly, it's far more of an abuse that a single natural player can
accumulate 13x (or arbitrarily more) base voting power on something through
free submission of trivial fix proposals. That's more of a chilling
effect on voting than partnership
On 6/20/07, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Overall, nothing's changed here in your above general opinion in
a long time: in 2001 we were trying to implement teams/partnerships
in a meaningful way (that was my first scam, CFJoops the CotC web
is offline this moment).
Groups weren't
Below are the votes for BobTHJ and those votes made on behalf of Primo
Corporation as CEO (prefaced by Primo:):
NUM TYP AI SUBMITTER TITLE
5027 O 1Zefram revocation of speling errors
FOR, Primo: FOR x2
5028 O 1Zefram complete generalisation of agreements
FOR,
On 6/20/07, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
5030 O 1rootRecantus Cygneus
AGAINST, Primo: AGAINST x2
I thought you liked that proposal...
-root
On 6/20/07, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/20/07, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
5030 O 1rootRecantus Cygneus
AGAINST, Primo: AGAINST x2
I thought you liked that proposal...
-root
I loved it :)
I just don't want to see the rule repealed.
BobTHJ
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Does this mean that cutoff for challenges, in the protection of
the proposal system, is outweighed any time the challenge is related to a
rule with higher precedence?
Not sure what you envision in related to. It's not outweighed due
to the proposal attempting to modify a
comex wrote:
I hereby deregister Human Point Two via R869.
Are you claiming that HP2 has lost person status by a change of partners?
If not, if partnerships don't (and didn't) qualify as persons then HP2
was never a person and so could never register as a player.
-zefram
Ian Kelly wrote:
Partnerships can still:
Some of these there's a good case for restricting. I don't see a problem
with them holding office, in general, though, or voting on non-democratic
proposals.
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
As per my last post, has it occurred to anyone that limiting VC
gains to ordinary proposals, which then can increase the ability
to pass ordinary proposals without bounds, is a *tad* too much
positive feedback to call the current system functional?
Yeah, I've been pondering
Ian Kelly wrote:
The ballot allotment time of a proposal of which the chamber
The term chamber is no longer defined. Would be clearer if you
define it.
Increase the power of Rule 2142 to 2, and amend it by
replacing the text 1.1 with 2.
Been thinking about this. Kicking a proposal up to
On 6/20/07, bd_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I register as a player of Agora Nomic under the name bd_ (excluding
quotes).
Welcome!
(By the way, your MUA is generating your signatures with
Content-Disposition: inline. Can you change it to attachment so they
don't show in mailers that don't
Roger Hicks wrote:
A player may expend one VC to increase eir own voting limit on an
ordinary proposal by one.
This makes a VC effectively an EV (Extra Vote), as existed in the
early years. Spending capital to influence a single proposal does not
make for a good game. If you want to
On 6/20/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This makes a VC effectively an EV (Extra Vote), as existed in the
early years. Spending capital to influence a single proposal does not
make for a good game. If you want to cast your EVs AGAINST a proposal,
then you may well succeed in voting it
Taral wrote:
I can't wait to get my hands on this...
Memo to Agora: don't put Eris in charge of numbering anything if e's
got a seventeen-digit number secreted about eir person.
-zefram
On Tuesday 19 June 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
such player, the Speaker) SHALL assign an ID number to it by
...
announcement as soon as possible; such an assignment is INVALID
I do fervently hope Mother, May I? fails. Unfortunately it does not seem
that it will. My objection is not
On 6/20/07, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/20/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This makes a VC effectively an EV (Extra Vote), as existed in the
early years. Spending capital to influence a single proposal does not
make for a good game. If you want to cast your EVs AGAINST a
On 6/20/07, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 19 June 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
such player, the Speaker) SHALL assign an ID number to it by
...
announcement as soon as possible; such an assignment is INVALID
I do fervently hope Mother, May I? fails. Unfortunately it does
On 6/20/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Taral wrote:
I can't wait to get my hands on this...
Memo to Agora: don't put Eris in charge of numbering anything if e's
got a seventeen-digit number secreted about eir person.
Memo to Zefram: Look up computable numbers.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Taral wrote:
How about if you keep them if you use them AGAINST, but not if you use them
FOR?
Mm, that's more interesting. I suppose one would
have a voting-limit-AGAINST-ordinary-proposals and
a voting-limit-FOR-ordinary-proposals; one can raise the former
permanently, but the latter only for
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 06:21:38PM -0500, Taral wrote:
On 6/20/07, bd_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I register as a player of Agora Nomic under the name bd_ (excluding
quotes).
Welcome!
(By the way, your MUA is generating your signatures with
Content-Disposition: inline. Can you change it to
We have a lovely system where all the influences on voting power are
persistent (for a period of time), not per proposal. It is marred by
per-proposal rewards. We've just discussed per-proposal voting power,
which has been done before. Let's consider the other approach: time-based
rewards
root wrote:
If partnerships were composed of non-player entities, e.g. if Wal-Mart
were to register, then I don't think there would be a problem. But in
practice the partnerships are constructed by players, resulting in
uneven representation of the natural players. This goes beyond just
BobTHJ wrote:
Below are the votes for BobTHJ and those votes made on behalf of Primo
Corporation as CEO (prefaced by Primo:):
Not to the PF.
Sorry I didn't notice this before, but you almost certainly want a
statement that ID numbers must be unique.
On 6/20/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Regulate ID numbers
(AI = 3, please)
Create a rule titled ID Numbers with this text:
If a rule defines a type of
Eris wrote:
Sorry I didn't notice this before, but you almost certainly want a
statement that ID numbers must be unique.
Huh? Oh, I see the problem. Revised text:
(b) Such an assignment is INVALID unless the number is a
natural number distinct from any ID number, and
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 10:25:52PM -0400, bd_ wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 07:07:13PM -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Regulate ID numbers
(AI = 3, please)
(b) Such an assignment is INVALID unless the number is a
natural number greater than any orderly ID
bd_ wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 07:07:13PM -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Regulate ID numbers
(AI = 3, please)
(b) Such an assignment is INVALID unless the number is a
natural number greater than any orderly ID number previously
assigned to an
On 6/20/07, Levi Stephen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Repeal Rule 2142
Modify Rule 106 by replacing the following text:
(This might have to be changed depending on other proposals)
The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1,
with a default and minimum value of
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 10:32:31PM -0500, Endymion wrote:
On 6/20/07, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
Proto-Proposal: A Suffusion of Yellow
I submit the following proposal, titled A Suffusion of Yellow:
(AI=4)
Replace all numbers in the
On 6/20/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have a lovely system where all the influences on voting power are
persistent (for a period of time), not per proposal. It is marred by
per-proposal rewards. We've just discussed per-proposal voting power,
which has been done before. Let's
On 6/20/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
root wrote:
* Hold office. This creates an obvious loophole around Rule 1450,
easily fixed using partnership bases.
Don't over-fix the problem. For instance, if the Speaker is a
partnership and the CotC is a natural-person member of that
I forsee problems. I assign a chaotic number 1 to a proposal. Ten
years from now, the Neo-proposal Promoter assigns number 1 to a
proposal, blissfully unaware that the number was already assigned 10
years ago.
BobTHJ
On 6/20/07, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry I didn't notice this
On 6/20/07, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/20/07, Levi Stephen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Repeal Rule 2142
Modify Rule 106 by replacing the following text:
(This might have to be changed depending on other proposals)
The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of
Ian Kelly wrote:
On 6/20/07, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/20/07, Levi Stephen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Repeal Rule 2142
Modify Rule 106 by replacing the following text:
(This might have to be changed depending on other proposals)
The adoption index of a proposal is an
Murphy wrote:
Create a rule titled ID Numbers with this text:
Can someone explain, and use small words so I'm sure to understand,
precisely why a system that has worked very well for a very long
time needs a new, long, rule? The current system will have the
occasional glitch that requires a
Maybe it would be worthwhile adding in the qualifier that
ordinary/democratic is decided at distribution time (as the proposer
is only allowed to modify the adoption index before that time). i.e.,
A Proposal with an Adoption Index of less than 2 at the time
it is distributed by the
On 6/20/07, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
root wrote:
I'm too lazy to be that proactive about it, nor do I want to get
bogged down in the extra requirements of multiple R1742 agreements
just to keep up with the Joneses.
That's an argument against implementing VCs, cards, currencies,
BobTHJ wrote:
I forsee problems. I assign a chaotic number 1 to a proposal. Ten
years from now, the Neo-proposal Promoter assigns number 1 to a
proposal, blissfully unaware that the number was already assigned 10
years ago.
That's what (e) is for. But even if we do make a mistake,
54 matches
Mail list logo
