On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend to make the following contract with comex:
>
> {
> Parties to this contract cannot leave this contract.
> Parties to this contract are obligated not to consent to making a
> Contract Change.
> Parties to this co
On Thursday 8 May 2008 6:45:24 Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Fair point. However:
> > "Could" is the subjunctive form of "can" (R754(1)), as in "I can join
> > the AAA today; I could have joined the AAA yesterday." "Can" SHOULD
> > be t
2008/5/9 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'm not surprised. comex also proposed the B Nomic proposal to
> declare war on Agora.
>
> -root
>
Of course, rubbish has many uses as well - especially if it can be recycled.
ehird
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 8:00 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 4. comex is the one who proposed the 'war' proposal and it was quickly
> shot down and ignored.
A minor technicality.
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 4. comex is the one who proposed the 'war' proposal and it was quickly
> shot down and ignored.
I'm not surprised. comex also proposed the B Nomic proposal to
declare war on Agora.
-root
2008/5/9 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Agora is being INVADED by FOREIGNERS from IRCNomic, our rebellious
> once-protectorate! In fact, a rule was proposed to declare war on us!
> Among that game's ranks are ais523 and ehird, who certainly are
> scamsters born and bred... we must defend ourselves!
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 5:40 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Agora is being INVADED by FOREIGNERS from IRCNomic, our rebellious
> once-protectorate! In fact, a rule was proposed to declare war on us!
> Among that game's ranks are ais523 and ehird, who certainly are
> scamsters born and bred
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fair point. However:
> "Could" is the subjunctive form of "can" (R754(1)), as in "I can join
> the AAA today; I could have joined the AAA yesterday." "Can" SHOULD
> be taken to mean "CAN" (R2152).
Hrm. I wonder if that use of
On Thursday 8 May 2008 5:40:15 Elliott Hird wrote:
> I join Agora. I wish to be known by the nickname ehird.
We have a suspicious sudden influx of people ending in numbers: Ivan
Hope CXXVII, ais523, and now (with a bit of wordplay) Elliot the
Third.
Conspiracy? Foreign invasion? Sock puppets?
Co
On Thursday 8 May 2008 5:39:14 Ian Kelly wrote:
> "CAN" and "could" are not synonymous. If the phrase used by R2169 is
> intended to mean "...the possible agreements that the parties CAN
> make...", then it should say that. Currently, it does not.
Fair point. However:
"Could" is the subjunctive
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 8 May 2008 4:26:23 Ian Kelly wrote:
>> I can also go to the bank and deposit my cash, provided I have the
>> cooperation of the muggers not to intercept me en route. By this
>> argument then, depositing cash at the
On Thursday 8 May 2008 4:26:23 Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thursday 8 May 2008 11:43:32 Ian Kelly wrote:
> >> I could make the agreement. I could make the agreement a contest.
> >> Therefore the contest is a possible agreement I c
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alternatively, the second paragraph of that rule, as either (1) comex
> was not a party at the time e published the text, or (2) e failed to
> publish its membership.
I'm not using the second paragraph; I'm using the auto-ident
On Thursday 8 May 2008 4:58:08 Ed Murphy wrote:
> comex wrote:
>
> > I do hereby publish this text, which is of a potential contract:
> > {{
> > 1. This contract will be public when it forms.
> > 2. This contract is a pledge.
> > }}
> >
> > I may at any time decide to make this into a contract (w
CFJ 1941 requires a mass flip from sitting to standing. Would
any supine players like to flip emselves to sitting first?
Also, I'm going to be at a conference in the Washington DC area
for most of next week, though I should be able to catch up on
events during the evenings.
comex wrote:
> I do hereby publish this text, which is of a potential contract:
> {{
> 1. This contract will be public when it forms.
> 2. This contract is a pledge.
> }}
>
> I may at any time decide to make this into a contract (without telling
> anyone), at which point it will be identified as
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend to appeal this with two support, as it completely fails to
> address the arguments that have been made around this issue.
I object, I was first ;)
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If a rule states that an action is regulated, that does not
> prevent that action from taking place, but only prevents that
> thing from taking place under rule 101(ii) (and therefore makes
> it impossible to tak
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I posit that it is inappropriate to apply an equity judgement that
> any reasonable person would find goes "beyond equity" (or as root
> admits, "equity with gravy") in applying a benefit to one or more
> parties.
I disagree,
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 8 May 2008 11:43:32 Ian Kelly wrote:
>> I could make the agreement. I could make the agreement a contest.
>> Therefore the contest is a possible agreement I could make. What's so
>> complicated about that?
>
> It'
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/8/08, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I deposit one Vote Point for 39 pens. (Let's see how quickly and
> > eagerly that gets snatched up!)
> >
> > Since I think Vote Points are more valuable than that, I change the
>
On Thursday 8 May 2008 11:43:32 Ian Kelly wrote:
> I could make the agreement. I could make the agreement a contest.
> Therefore the contest is a possible agreement I could make. What's so
> complicated about that?
It's not possible for you to do so truly unilaterally. In a certain
sense, yes, n
On 5/8/08, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I deposit one Vote Point for 39 pens. (Let's see how quickly and
> eagerly that gets snatched up!)
>
> Since I think Vote Points are more valuable than that, I change the
> Vote Point rates to 43.92/54.53.
Why didn't you do this the other way around
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wouldn't be surprised either argument prevailing here (and I wouldn't
> appeal one going your way, though I would appeal one based on R101). It
> was always risky to give equity cases the ability to affect things
> flexibly
Goethe wrote:
> The confusion of case law finally reached the point that it was stated
> very explicitly in Rule 101/2 (Power=3) introduced by Maud, August 2005:
>
>Agora May I?
>
> Any player is permitted to perform an action which is not
> regulated. An action is regulated if
Wooble wrote:
> In any case, there appears to be precedent beyond just game custom
> that regulated actions are impossible to perform unless otherwise
> authorized by the rules, but unfortunately the CotC database stops 2
> cases later than the one I found cited (CFJ 1237), but CFJ 1295a does
> sa
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> I could make the agreement. I could make the agreement a contest.
> Therefore the contest is a possible agreement I could make. What's so
> complicated about that?
Sorry to get on aside about "regulation" and R101, that was a side-issue
without bearing he
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 May 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> I don't see how you claim that "this judgement makes this contract
>> into a contest" is equivalent to "the following agreement is a
>> contest".
>
> They are both "I say it is, therefo
(Condensing replies to save emails...)
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 4:36 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 8 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
>> No, it doesn't have to take precedence over 2125. All 2125 implies is that
>> the
>> action of creating a contest is "regulated". Searchi
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> I don't see how you claim that "this judgement makes this contract
> into a contest" is equivalent to "the following agreement is a
> contest".
They are both "I say it is, therefore it is" and in that sense
equivalent(ly ineffective).
-Goethe
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 4:30 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "The valid judgements for this question are the possible agreements
>> that the parties could make that would be governed by the rules."
>
> So you've made your agreement. The agreement exists. I don't doubt
> that. But R2
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 4:11 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But it does make being a contest regulated via 2125(b). And there's no
> backing at all for your assertion that judgements can arbitrarily
> change or set regulated properties. In fact that assertion is
> discredited. Sayin
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> In any case, there appears to be precedent beyond just game custom
> that regulated actions are impossible to perform unless otherwise
> authorized by the rules, but unfortunately the CotC database stops 2
> cases later than the one I found cited (CFJ 12
On 5/8/08, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Contest-ness is tracked by Agorans within Agoran records, and is not
> "part of" the contract. Is the fact that you are supine, leaning,
> standing, etc. an intrinsic part of yourself? Or is it an external
> label applied by Agoran rules?
It se
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 6:54 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal (AI=3,II=1):
> Amend rule 2125 by adding, at the end:
> "A player MAY NOT perform a regulated action except when permitted to
> do so by an instrument with power at least 0.1".
I think this
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
> I call for judgement on the statement "If a rule states that an action
> is regulated, that does not prevent that action from taking place, but
> only prevents that thing from taking place under rule 101(ii) (and
> therefore makes it impossible to take
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
> But rule 101 doesn't prevent players doing anything. Rule 101 is entirely
> concerned with allowing players to do things (as its title suggests).
No, the fact that the Rules exist at all and Players bind themselves to the
Rules prevents players from d
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
> Goethe wrote:
>> Once regulated, a quantity can only be changed by methods contained
>> in the rules.
> Can you give a citation for that? From my quick grepping of the rules,
> the only effect that I saw regulating something had was to prevent that
> so
But rule 101 doesn't prevent players doing anything. Rule 101 is entirely
concerned with allowing players to do things (as its title suggests). I
still think you're confusing "regulated" and "secured". And securedness
has a power threshold for this reason. Again, if you want to persist with
this ar
Goethe wrote:
> Once regulated, a quantity can only be changed by methods contained
> in the rules.
Can you give a citation for that? From my quick grepping of the rules,
the only effect that I saw regulating something had was to prevent that
something from taking place under rule 101(ii). You're c
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
> No, it doesn't have to take precedence over 2125. All 2125 implies is that the
> action of creating a contest is "regulated". Searching the ruleset for words
> starting "regulat" finds that the only relevant affect that this has is to
> prevent rule 101
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
> rule 2169/4 isn't powerful enough to make gamestate changes above power
> 1.7 (but /is/ powerful enough to create a contest, as the definition of
> a contest has a power of 1).
Um, no. R2125 states that regulated quantities are regulated quantities,
r
No, it doesn't have to take precedence over 2125. All 2125 implies is that the
action of creating a contest is "regulated". Searching the ruleset for words
starting "regulat" finds that the only relevant affect that this has is to
prevent rule 101(ii) from allowing any player to create a contest at
Even if arbitrary rule changes were something a player could do by
emself, they aren't binding agreements, usually; and even if they were,
rule 2169/4 isn't powerful enough to make gamestate changes above power
1.7 (but /is/ powerful enough to create a contest, as the definition of
a contest has a
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
> Oh, and rule 2169 takes precedence over rule 2136 anyway (it's more powerful).
That doesn't matter if there's no conflict. And if this is interpreted being
a conflict, it would have to take precedence over 2125 (power-3) as well.
-Goethe
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> ACK: Agora says: "now that you entered a contest as judgement in an
> equity case, and that contract has gone into effect per Rule 2169, you
> are recognized by our rules as a contest..." Rule 2136 does not say
> that it can be the only means to creating a
Oh, and rule 2169 takes precedence over rule 2136 anyway (it's more powerful).
--
ais523
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Ian Kelly
Sent: Thu 08/05/2008 07:53
To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1932 assigned to ais523
On
47 matches
Mail list logo
