On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Michael Norrish
wrote:
> I register for the Agora XX game.
>
> Michael
>
Now I feel like there was no reason to modify Rule 104.
On Fri, 2013-06-21 at 15:24 +1000, Michael Norrish wrote:
> Very cool. I'm glad that's being used. I don't know how long it took me,
> but I
> certainly shifted well away from being a Platonist as the game progressed.
> Clearly I was young and naïve initially.
The current system is pretty frien
On 21/06/13 14:38, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Michael Norrish
> wrote:
>> This attitude was certainly one I held when we began the game. I later
>> proposed
>> a “document-centric” view of things, whereby the state was defined to be
>> whatever the contents of the docum
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Michael Norrish
wrote:
> This attitude was certainly one I held when we began the game. I later
> proposed
> a “document-centric” view of things, whereby the state was defined to be
> whatever the contents of the document said it was, but with some (unspecified)
On 15/06/13 02:46, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> the *other* fundamental CFJ waiting to be assigned, the one about
>> whether the gamestate stores a mutable record of history or not.
> This is another thing I keep thinking of the history of; what's the
> history of seeing the "gamestate" as some sort of
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:24 AM, Michael Norrish
wrote:
> I register for the Agora XX game.
>
> Michael
>
All the cool kids are doing it these days. I register as well.
-scshunt
I register for the Agora XX game.
Michael
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Aaron Goldfein
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 6:21 AM, Charles Walker
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I propose a ##nomic session, with discussion of Agora's history and other
>>> chat. We can invite any an
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 6:21 AM, Charles Walker <
> charles.w.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I propose a ##nomic session, with discussion of Agora's history and other
>> chat. We can invite any ancients who reply to Yally's email.
>>
>> W
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 6:21 AM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> I propose a ##nomic session, with discussion of Agora's history and other
> chat. We can invite any ancients who reply to Yally's email.
>
> Would 22:00, UK time on the 29th be ok for most people? (We might want to
> look into organising a f
Voting is closed on this. It passes 2:1 (Chuck,Yally vs Walker). This
enacts rule 305. Chuck +10 and Walker +2 by rule 302. Full report in
about 10 hours.
Voting on 306-309 is still open. Vote early, vote often!
-Dan
305 (Chuck):
I propose that the following rule be created:
No rule may
Voting on 305 closes in about an hour. 306 and 307 close in about 11
hours. Here I'm just numbering and repeating the two new proposals. As
always you can vote by just replying to this message, privately if you like.
Voting on these closes in 24h.
-Dan
308 (Chuck):
I propose that Rule 110
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, omd wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > What's really missing? It seems pretty evident to me that a power-3.1
> > rule that says, "after this ratifies, we treat everything going forward
> > as if this history was true" is pretty straightforward
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013, omd wrote:
> I consider wins by paradox to fall into this category, but since they
> tend to come out of nowhere and be unstoppable (typically the
> undefined behavior is achieved and CFJed on in a single message),
> there is no real way to stop them.
Little tid-bit: That
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Fool wrote:
> Now, usually to win it is necessary to stop others from winning. Around here
> the two things are often unrelated. Win by paradox seems like a perfect
> example, it looks like it basically does nothing, so this doesn't affect
> anyone else's chances o
I propose that Rule 206 be amended to read:
"Initially, each Voter has exactly one vote on each proposal. During the
voting period on a proposal, a player with more than 50 points may cast an
additional vote on that proposal by making a statement to that effect on
the mailing list; this destroys 5
I propose a ##nomic session, with discussion of Agora's history and other chat.
We can invite any ancients who reply to Yally's email.
Would 22:00, UK time on the 29th be ok for most people? (We might want to look
into organising a few of these if not).
-- Walker
I propose that Rule 110 be transmuted to mutable.
omd, I will vote for the transmutation of 112 if you will vote for the
transmutation of 110.
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: agora-discussion [mailto:agora-discussion-boun...@agoranomic.org] On
Behalf Of omd
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 201
omd made two proposals in a message sent at 10:00 p.m. EDT on June 19.
Chuck
From: agora-discussion [mailto:agora-discussion-boun...@agoranomic.org] On
Behalf Of Aaron Goldfein
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 12:58 AM
To: Fool; Agora Nomic discussions (DF)
Subject: Re: DIS: Agora XX: Proposal
Good day Agorans,
Since last report, proposals 301, 302, and 304 were adopted, while
303 failed. The overall change to the ruleset is just that 211 is
amended, now 302. The current ruleset is included at the end of this
message.
There are three new proposals. Voting on 305 closes in about
I'll send a report out shortly. Here I'm numbering and repeating the two
new proposals. As always you can vote by just replying to this message,
privately if you like.
Voting on these closes in 24h.
-Dan
306 (omd):
I propose that a rule be enacted as follows:
A player may transfer points
On Wed, 2013-06-19 at 20:37 -0700, omd wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Sean Hunt
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> >> Time to do a total copout, I guess, given that I'm not paying enough
> >> attention to sort this out by myself:
> >>
> >> For each colou
22 matches
Mail list logo
