On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 16:09 -0400, comex wrote:
> An instrument is any entity that is generally capable of
> communicating, at every point in time, a (usually empty) ordered
> list of changes it intends to apply to the gamestate. Power is
> an instrument switch whose values
On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 15:01 -0400, Warrigal wrote:
> My comment got cut off up top, but you can still see it down at the
> bottom. Team 3 now consists of ehird, G., omd, and woggle; Team 4
> consists of ais523, Sgeo, and Yally.
>
> —Distributor (in a sense) Tanner L. Swett
Heh, thanks for relievi
On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 10:35 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I announce my intent to ratify the current ownership of Ribbons as
> follows, Without Objection:
Don't asset reports in general (and ribbon reports in particular)
self-ratify anyway?
--
ais523
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, Warrigal wrote:
> I submit the following Urgent Proposal, titled "The List of No Doubt",
> AI = 2, II = 1: {In Rule 2314, replace "eir position on the list is
> found by judicial declaration to be unknown or ambiguous" with "eir
> position on the list has been found to be un
I say if the report was published at time T, and it does not say it's
a report from time S, then it's a report from time T.
—Tanner L. Swett
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 10, 2010, at 6:24 PM, Keba wrote:
> Proposal "Trade Capacitors" (AI=1, II=0)
> {{{
> Amend Rule "Capacitors" by replacing
>
>Capacitors are a class of fixed assets
>
> with:
>
>Capacitors are a class of assets
> }}}
Dupe.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 10, 2010, at 6:27 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Judicial declarations are only self-ratifying if their publication is
> required, and these certainly were not.
I'm trying to use the "found by judicial declaration to be unknown or
ambiguous" clause, not self-ratification.
On 09/10/2010 06:21 PM, comex wrote:
As judge of CFJ 2857, I publish the following /incorrect/ judicial declarations:
{ G.'s position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ coppro's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ omd's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ wog
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 4:09 PM, comex wrote:
> Proto:
+ this, to make "X state is IMPOSSIBLE" work:
Amend Rule 2152 by replacing:
1. CANNOT, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID: Attempts to
perform the described action are unsuccessful.
with:
1. CANNOT, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECT
Proto:
[I think all this ambiguity about how proposals take effect is caused
by a cosmology of instruments that has evolved from simple to complex
without ditching some assumptions that now unnecessarily increase the
complexity. Take this paragraph from Rule 106:
Preventing a proposal from
G. wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, com...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Sep 10, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>>> Instruments generally, nowhere. Proposals in particular, the first
>>> paragraph of R106:
>>>
>>> When a proposal that includes
>>> such explicit chan
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> No, PD is was exactly at one point. The logic: "All of us non-rebels left
> will move lower on the list if the rebellion wins. So we (collectively)
> want the rebellion to fail, so we shouldn't rebel (that's cooperation).
> However, individua
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I announce my intent to ratify the current ownership of Ribbons as
> follows, Without Objection:
Unnecessary; by R2166, reports on asset holdings are self-ratifying.
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, com...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 10, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> > Instruments generally, nowhere. Proposals in particular, the first
> > paragraph of R106:
> >
> > When a proposal that includes
> > such explicit changes takes ef
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 10, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> Instruments generally, nowhere. Proposals in particular, the first
> paragraph of R106:
>
> When a proposal that includes
> such explicit changes takes effect, it applies those changes to
> the gamestate.
Huh.
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> Instruments generally, nowhere. Proposals in particular, the first
> paragraph of R106:
>
> When a proposal that includes
> such explicit changes takes effect, it applies those changes to
> the gamestate.
Ah, there we go: I (and Murphy
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, Warrigal wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I was also thinking towards the end that it's a pretty good Prisoner's
> > Dilemma situation set up. Towards the end (when chance was pretty
> > near 50/50) there were a few people who could better the
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> 2855: TRUE
>> 2856: TRUE
>>
>> A substantive aspect of a rule pertains to /how/ a rule governs, not
>> /what/ a rule governs. With that argument eliminated, a low-powered
>> proposal is just as c
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 4:41 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Hawkishness (Rule 1871) of active players
> -
>
> Hovering: Tanner L. Swett
> Taral
>
> All other active players are hemming-and-hawing.
CoE: this is no longer defined.
—Tanner L. Swett
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I was also thinking towards the end that it's a pretty good Prisoner's
> Dilemma situation set up. Towards the end (when chance was pretty
> near 50/50) there were a few people who could better their position by
> one by rebelling; then there w
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, Ed Murphy wrote:
> 2855: TRUE
> 2856: TRUE
>
> A substantive aspect of a rule pertains to /how/ a rule governs, not
> /what/ a rule governs. With that argument eliminated, a low-powered
> proposal is just as capable as a low-powered rule (they're both
> instruments and th
21 matches
Mail list logo
