Ed Murphy wrote:
>What about the case where a judge whose verdict of GUILTY is
>overturned after e delivers sentence?
Interesting one. Perhaps e should ultimately lose a VC for the sentence
having become inapplicable, but still I think a blue one.
-zefram
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> The following was received by me: complete headers available if necessary.
>
> Not that I care much in this case, but this violates R2173 by being
> sent to the PF, rather than privately to Judge comex.
Oop, sorry, I misread r2173 as requiring public disc
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> "To decrease a value by -1" cannot be reasonably interpreted to mean
> the same thing as "to increase a value by 1".
Obviously, it can. I just did. If you don't like the result, provide
something that I haven't directly refuted already, otherwise have
On Dec 6, 2007 11:30 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this judgment.
>
> "To decrease a value by -1" cannot be reasonably interpreted to mean
> the same thing as "to increase a value by 1".
I think Goethe's arguments demonstrate that it can.
-roo
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> "To decrease a value by -1" cannot be reasonably interpreted to mean
>> the same thing as "to increase a value by 1".
>
> Obviously, it can. I just did. If you don't like the result, provide
> something that I
On Dec 6, 2007 1:32 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> > "To decrease a value by -1" cannot be reasonably interpreted to mean
> > the same thing as "to increase a value by 1".
>
> Obviously, it can. I just did. If you don't like the result,
On Dec 6, 2007 11:42 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The fact that you interpreted it as such does not make it obvious that
> such an interpretation is reasonable.
That's presumably why e wrote more than just "I choose interpretation
X." In my opinion, this is one of the most bala
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> The fact that you interpreted it as such does not make it obvious that
> such an interpretation is reasonable.
Reasonable is as reasonable does. :)
On Dec 6, 2007 1:49 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 2007 11:42 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The fact that you interpreted it as such does not make it obvious that
> > such an interpretation is reasonable.
>
> That's presumably why e wrote more than just "I
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> By the way, I define "a little respect" as taking a similar several hours
> to ...[blah blah blah]
> -Goethe
pps. Apologies Wooble. That was a bit snappy. I'm a bit under-the-weather,
and I spent a bunch of time over the last week with this one in the
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> Indeed, if hours of research could only find 1 example of this type of
> usage of a term and even that usage wouldn't apply in this case I'd
> say it's been pretty well established that in a mathematical context
> the term decrease isn't used to mean any
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> In CFJ 1813, Goethe argued that VVLOP is defined as a "parameter",
> implicitly treated as a number, but could also be interpreted as a set
> of numbers (added up whenever the value of VVLOP is queried).
Nice one, completely ignoring a precedent and calli
On Dec 6, 2007 12:33 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since the rules don't define a parameter clearly (whereas they would
> define something like a "number"), we can reasonably abstract it into
> a mathematical concept (sets) which allow the operation, and if can be
> so abstracted.
A
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> However, this only works if the set contains a -1 to be
> removed.
To be fair (though I wish you'd just appeal with this argument rather
than try to make a conflicting precedent which I'd appeal as being
inconsistent with the old one), this is the point tha
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> As an additional point, note that "parameter" *is* primarily used in
> mathematical contexts, and its usage (a fixed value) does not
> contradict Goethe's usage, although it does not directly support it
> either.
Actually, what I spend 50% of my real life jo
On Dec 6, 2007 12:15 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In CFJ 1813, Goethe argued that VVLOP is defined as a "parameter",
> implicitly treated as a number, but could also be interpreted as a set
> of numbers (added up whenever the value of VVLOP is queried). In this
> hypothetical context
Goethe wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
In CFJ 1813, Goethe argued that VVLOP is defined as a "parameter",
implicitly treated as a number, but could also be interpreted as a set
of numbers (added up whenever the value of VVLOP is queried).
Nice one, completely ignoring a preceden
On Dec 6, 2007 2:15 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Arguing that the AFO's VVLOP was not increased wouldn't change the
> judgement of FALSE.
That's true, but it seems to be me that it's game custom to treat the
reasoning behind judgments as precedent for future judgments, even
though, i
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> and 3) alone is enough to rule 1813 FALSE, which is why I didn't
> join Wooble's appeal. I'm instead disputing 2), on the grounds
> that treating VVLOP as an implicit set is too big a stretch.
Ah yes, even if an appeals court "overturned" (2), they'd still
Actually, I've wondered this about "precedent" for a while. Statement S
is only TRUE if A and B and C are all true. A judge's arguments finds
that A is true, B is true, but C is false, so S is false.
Alternative interpretations:
1. All the arguments are part of the judge's precedent, and sho
On Dec 6, 2007 2:19 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Actually, I've wondered this about "precedent" for a while. Statement S
> is only TRUE if A and B and C are all true. A judge's arguments finds
> that A is true, B is true, but C is false, so S is false.
>
> Alternative interpreta
On Dec 6, 2007 2:40 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> #1 seems the most logical, and yet it makes a valid case for the
> elimination of stare decisis. Who wants to review the past X years of
> case history to determine if a fragment of a judgment somewhere might
> have bearing on a prese
BobTHJ wrote:
#1 seems the most logical, and yet it makes a valid case for the
elimination of stare decisis. Who wants to review the past X years of
case history to determine if a fragment of a judgment somewhere might
have bearing on a present-day situation? There should be some sort of
expirat
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, comex wrote:
> If the action was forbidden, would I have wasted my 0 VCs, or would
> the "spending" of them not take place? (Compare N=-1 in 2126 b) if the
> guard were not there.)
Past game custom strongly supports that if you try to spend something to
do something that fai
On Thursday 06 December 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I'll add in passing that if VVLOP was even defined as a "number" or
> "integer" or something, I'd forbid the action. But defining it as a
> "parameter", where "parameter" is not rules-defined and very broad in
> its common and mathematical definit
On Dec 6, 2007 4:19 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Actually, I've wondered this about "precedent" for a while. Statement S
> is only TRUE if A and B and C are all true. A judge's arguments finds
> that A is true, B is true, but C is false, so S is false.
>
> Alternative interpreta
I've been lurking around Agora for a year and a
halfor so (according to the deluge of mailing
list messages in my inbox...), and have decided
to boldly post a question addressed to the
Rulekeepor (which I think is currently Zefram?)!
(thunderclap)
I was wondering whether you use any special
softwa
On Dec 6, 2007 5:22 PM, Cctoide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was wondering whether you use any special
> software to edit the rulesets. I can see doing
> it all in a standard text editor, but all the
> paragraph stuff seems like it would be rather
> time-consuming.
I'm not and never have been Ru
On Thursday 06 December 2007, Zefram wrote:
> I'll just add to that that I have a small Perl program to do
> ruleset-style paragraph filling for me.
I've been meaning to start a thread about tools since I learned that pikhq
uses kmail. pikhq,
- Do you have full text indexing on? (I don't, becaus
> An ex-Acka player asked me about this privately a couple of months ago,
> seeking advice about how to keep records for a hypothetical new nomic.
> Here's what I wrote about the ruleset:
> ...
Ah, that explains it perfectly. Thanks for the in-depth response. :)
(maybe I'll register, one of these
On Thursday 06 December 2007 18:31:54 comex wrote:
> On Thursday 06 December 2007, Zefram wrote:
> > I'll just add to that that I have a small Perl program to do
> > ruleset-style paragraph filling for me.
>
> I've been meaning to start a thread about tools since I learned that pikhq
> uses kmail
Cctoide wrote:
>I was wondering whether you use any special
>software to edit the rulesets.
An ex-Acka player asked me about this privately a couple of months ago,
seeking advice about how to keep records for a hypothetical new nomic.
Here's what I wrote about the ruleset:
My primary record is
--
Brainfuck Golf
1) Every week, the contestmaster SHALL announce a new task to be implemented
in Brainfuck.
2) A week after the announcement, the contestmaster SHALL select one program
which implements the task which is smaller than all other submitted programs.
The author of t
On 12/6/07, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 3) If a player would be awarded points were it not for the maximum amount of
> points allotted by the rules of Agora, for each point that could not be
> awarded, the player shall receive an
> nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgtea
Hey all. As I look more and more at the currency in Agora, I notice
how screwed up it is. VCs disappear and appear, and it doesn't
demonstrate how real-world currency works. Personally, I think a
less-regulated, free-market sort of currency would be cool. For
reference, see what I've done with Agor
I just really don't like VCs. They work in annoying ways, cannot be
easily traded, and it seems like we need a real currency again. Would
you guys be interested in making that work?
Nick
On Dec 6, 2007 9:30 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Nick Vanderweit wrote:
> 1) Funds, in dolaroj (do-LAR-oy), which are held by players.
> 2) A Treasury, an entity whose sole purpose is to hold money.
> 3) A Treasuror, who decides how to spend said money, and may "print"
> money if the number of dolaroj [etc.]
Take a look at t
On 12/6/07, Nick Vanderweit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey all. As I look more and more at the currency in Agora, I notice
> how screwed up it is. VCs disappear and appear, and it doesn't
> demonstrate how real-world currency works.
I think we did Real Currency. I'm sure someone will come up wit
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> It worked fairly well when we had ~25 active players for a time. When our
> numbers dropped down to ~10, the system basically collapsed under its
> own administrative weight (and our boredom), and we dismantled it.
Actually, when skimming past messages re
On 12/6/07, Nick Vanderweit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just really don't like VCs. They work in annoying ways, cannot be
> easily traded, and it seems like we need a real currency again. Would
> you guys be interested in making that work?
What about folding VCs into Marks and charging a "trans
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Nick Vanderweit wrote:
> I just really don't like VCs. They work in annoying ways, cannot be
> easily traded, and it seems like we need a real currency again. Would
> you guys be interested in making that work?
Oh sure, there were many good things about the old system, didn't
41 matches
Mail list logo
