Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Zefram wrote:
I dislike this idea.
Why?
I think it's not a naturally significant condition, but one that could be
expected to occur in some perfectly ordinary circumstances. Attempts to
avert such a win would induce people to make good proposals fail, which
i
Given that B and Agora are rattling their rulesets, what do we want
to do should the situation devolve into open warfare?
For that matter, is Agora currently party to any extant inter-Nomic
conventions?
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
On Nov 14, 2007, at 11:14 AM, comex wrote:
On 11/14/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think it's not a naturally significant condition, but one that
could be
expected to occur in some perfectly ordinary circumstances.
Attempts to
avert such a win would induce people to make good prop
On 11/14/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal, titled "Contracts are a subset of
> agreements" (II=0):
>
> Amend Rule 2136 (Contests) by replacing each instance of the word
> "agreement" with "contest".
"A contest is a contest that..."
On Nov 14, 2007 12:01 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Are "basis" and "disjoint" suitably
> > and clearly defined in "primarily mathematical contexts" when we're
> > so we don't have to define it further? (I think so, just double-checking).
>
> Assuming that "Generalized basis sets"
On Nov 14, 2007 10:48 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A contestmaster may, each week, award to its contestants a
> number of points equal to 5 times its basis...
Should be "5 times the size of its basis"
> Create the following rule, "Public Contracts":
>
>A public con
On Nov 14, 2007 11:54 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > How about requiring the basis of the contestmaster to be disjoint from
> > the bases of the contestmasters of all other contests?
>
> Works for me. Side question: "basis" is defined for
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> How about requiring the basis of the contestmaster to be disjoint from
> the bases of the contestmasters of all other contests?
Works for me. Side question: "basis" is defined for partnerships only
but not agreements in general. Are "basis" and "disjoint
On Nov 14, 2007 11:05 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> > Why first-class? This prevents contests run by a partnership (thus
> > sharing the responsibilities of running the contest). The rest of it I
> > like.
>
> Using the "basis" for membersh
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Why first-class? This prevents contests run by a partnership (thus
> sharing the responsibilities of running the contest). The rest of it I
> like.
Using the "basis" for membership points calculations prevents scammers
from raising the points available to
On Nov 14, 2007 10:48 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>A public contract is created by the publication of its text by
>its Originator. The originator must be a first-class player.
Why first-class? This prevents contests run by a partnership (thus
sharing the responsibilities of
All these bugs mirror fixes made in the old contests which were pretty
bulleted against scams. Also, the joining issue. In fact, the old
Organization rules covered a lot of this well. Let's try again.
--
Proto: Public games,
On Nov 14, 2007 9:30 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it comes down to the interpretation of Murphy's "I agree to
> be bound by ...". Was e agreeing to create a single contract only,
> with potentially many parties? Or just a single contract with exactly
> one other party? Or mult
Ian Kelly wrote:
>But does such dissolution prevent anybody else from agreeing to be
>bound by it and forming the contract once again?
That's one of the things I was wondering about. If not, I believe the
new agreement would be a different contract from the first one. Then the
phrase "the Bake T
On Nov 14, 2007 4:29 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
> >I agree to be bound by the following contract:
> >
> > 1) The name of this contest is Bake The Traitor.
> >
> > 2) The contestmaster of this contest is Murphy.
> >
> > 3) Any contestant other than comex who becomes
On 11/14/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it's not a naturally significant condition, but one that could be
> expected to occur in some perfectly ordinary circumstances. Attempts to
> avert such a win would induce people to make good proposals fail, which
> is a perverse behaviour t
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Zefram wrote:
>>I dislike this idea.
>
>Why?
I think it's not a naturally significant condition, but one that could be
expected to occur in some perfectly ordinary circumstances. Attempts to
avert such a win would induce people to make good proposals fail, which
is a perverse be
On 11/14/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Zefram wrote:
>
> > Ed Murphy wrote:
>
> >> Create a rule titled "Winning by Legislative Dominance" with Power 2
> >
> > I dislike this idea.
>
> Why?
We need more ways to win.
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Create a rule titled "Winning by Legislative Dominance" with Power 2
I dislike this idea.
Why?
On Nov 14, 2007 12:16 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 2007 6:18 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2. Anyone want to pull the old guillotine rules out?
>
> I play the "Let Them Eat Cake" card and behead Marie Antoinette.
>
> -root
>
The cake is a lie.
BobTHJ
On 11/14/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
> >Wonko and bad leprechaun are co-authors of this proposal.
>
> Are these specific entities?
See...
http://b.nomic.net/index.php/Victory_Conditions
On 11/14/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If we accept the contract's dubious synonymity of "contestant" =
> "party other than Murphy", in one second I'll cease to be a party,
> and the contract will dissolve.
Or perhaps after one second you became Murphy.
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Wonko and bad leprechaun are co-authors of this proposal.
Are these specific entities?
>Create a rule titled "Winning by Legislative Dominance" with Power 2
I dislike this idea.
-zefram
23 matches
Mail list logo
