On Wed, 1 Jan 2014, omd wrote:
Also, I think that in some sense, we already have a way to bury
legalese in a separate document: judgements themselves. This has pros
and cons compared to actual binding text - judgements can get stale
relatively easily, are harder to search, and have a habit
Rulekeepor, is it required that you omit the Index of Rules from the
Short Logical Ruleset? I think it would help the readability if it was
included.
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jan 2014, Henri Bouchard wrote:
Is the ruleset on the
Rulekeepor,
Is it required that you omit the Index of Rules from the Short Logical
Ruleset? I think it would help the readability if it was included.
-Henri
Enact the following rule, named Motions:
Any player may set forth a motion to take some official action.
Official actions include, but are not limited to, amendment of
or additions of rules.
All official motions must be in bold and italics and begin with
I make a
Enact the following rule, named Motions:
If at any point there are three votes from three different players in favor
of a motion, the motion passes and is acted upon. If at any point there are
three votes from three different players against a motion, the motion
fails. If the motion passes, and
If at any point there are three votes from three different players in
favor of a motion, the motion passes and is acted upon. If at any
point there are three votes from three different players against a
motion, the motion fails. If the motion passes, and requires that the
rules be amended, the
Oh, sorry! I accidentally sent these emails to Agora Discussion, but I
meant to send them to myself to preview them! Sorry! Please disregard them!
-Henri
Can anybody tell me how to indent a whole paragraph in plain text
mode? Do I have to manually put 5 spaces in front of each line? Also,
how many letters fit into one line in Plain Text Mode?
-Henri
Nevermind, I figured it out.
-Henri
On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 16:20 -0500, Henri Bouchard wrote:
Repeal the following rules:
Rule 104: First Speaker
I see an obvious problem here.
--
ais523
On Thu, 2 Jan 2014, Henri Bouchard wrote:
Rule 106: Adopting Proposals
I think, that the instant this one goes through, the proposal
loses power and the rule changes after it stop (I could be
wrong though). You actually might get into trouble even earlier,
as for a while precedence
Henri Bouchard wrote:
All official motions must be in bold and italics and begin with
AGAINST
Henri Bouchard wrote:
I vote:
FOR Proposal 7611
FOR Proposal 7612
FOR Proposal 7613
NttPF
On 2 January 2014 21:02, Henri Bouchard henrib...@gmail.com wrote:
Rulekeepor, is it required that you omit the Index of Rules from the
Short Logical Ruleset? I think it would help the readability if it was
included.
I agree; I'll try to remember to include it next time.
Thank you.
-Henri
Oops, I better delete that part.
On Thu, 2 Jan 2014, Henri Bouchard wrote:
Oops, I better delete that part.
You keep replying to the same thread so I have no idea on the
context here... :)
On 2014-01-02 1:57 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Amend Rule 2419 (Winning) to read:
[...]
Quadrant is a player switch tracked by the Herald, with values
Alpha (default), Beta, Gamma, and Delta, synonymous to quadrants
1-4 in the complex plane, respectively. A player CAN
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
I might go even further by allowing players to just judge any CFJ any
time they felt like it, and appeals would be handled via piling on
dissenting opinions. There wouldn't be a hard yes/no answer at the end
of it, but
On 2014-01-02 5:44 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
With a change of this magnitude, maybe you could post a proto-
ruleset of where you hope things would end up (including what
rules remain), then we could see if it makes logical sense as a
whole, and figure out the technicality of getting there - perhaps
On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 20:37 -0500, Fool wrote:
Hmmm... I'm pretty sure he meant to repeal all the rules. We can go
ahead and figure this out without knowing what the end state is, no? We
should be able to come up with a generic way to replace the ruleset with
some bootstrap rule that
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:43 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
Arguably, one of the reasons Agora's survived so long is not just that
the players are generally opposed to mass ruleset replacements (which
have a tendency to kill nomics outright: look at what happened to
Nomicapolis), but
On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 21:18 -0500, Henri Bouchard wrote:
But hey, Blognomic seems to get away with mass rule changes every so
often. Couldn't Agora survive a one time ruleset reset if we are
careful?
Blognomic hasn't had a mass rule change in pretty much forever; the core
rules change very
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
Blognomic hasn't had a mass rule change in pretty much forever; the core
rules change very slowly. It has periodic resets, but those only reset
the dynastic rules: the economy and gameplay. And Agora resets those
frequently as
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
Blognomic hasn't had a mass rule change in pretty much forever; the core
rules change very slowly. It has periodic resets, but those only reset
the dynastic rules: the economy and gameplay. And Agora resets those
frequently as
On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 21:32 -0500, Henri Bouchard wrote:
Which rules would you say are core rules in Agora?
The ruleset security rules and definitional rules (i.e. what is a
player, how is the ruleset interpreted), together with the rules for
changing the ruleset (i.e. the proposal rules), are
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
I might go even further by allowing players to just judge any CFJ any
time they felt like it, and appeals would be handled via piling on
dissenting opinions. There wouldn't be a hard yes/no answer at the end
of it, but Agora's
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Henri Bouchard henrib...@gmail.com wrote:
Any person can initiate a Call for Judgement by announcement,
specifying a statement (the Argument) that is to be validated or
invalidated. Any person can vote for the validation or
invalidation
On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 23:11 -0500, omd wrote:
This allows any group of four persons (don't even have to be players)
to take over the game.
And I can think of several groups of four persons who would. (There are
numerous combinations I could organise myself, in addition to all the
combinations
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
Upon a true
announcement that one or more specified players have achieved
Numberwang
You have just redeemed yourself, sir.
Which reminds you, I still need to send you something.
-scshunt
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Henri Bouchard henrib...@gmail.com wrote:
A simple majority of the active
players is required for the Call for Judgement to be validated.
When does voting end / how many players must vote before it's validated?
On Fri, 3 Jan 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 15:42 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I submit the following Proposal, Mostly Simple Judging, AI-2:
[This isn't the absolute simplest judgement system,
On Fri, 3 Jan 2014, Henri Bouchard wrote:
Any player can vote for the validation or invalidation
of a judicial case.
If we're to vote, we can always use a proposal. I personally
would prefer to start with a single judge.
On Fri, 2014-01-03 at 00:15 -0500, Henri Bouchard wrote:
I submit the following proposal.
Proposal: The Simplest Judging of All
Nope, the simplest judging of all goes something like this:
{{{
If a matter of
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:18 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2014, Henri Bouchard wrote:
Any player can vote for the validation or invalidation
of a judicial case.
If we're to vote, we can always use a proposal. I personally
would prefer to start
On Fri, 2014-01-03 at 00:26 -0500, Henri Bouchard wrote:
So couldn't we just get rid of the judgement system and use the
proposal system instead? Wouldn't that be a lot simpler?
You can get rid of almost anything in favour of proposals. If you do,
you end up with a nomic where all you have is a
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:31 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2014-01-03 at 00:26 -0500, Henri Bouchard wrote:
So couldn't we just get rid of the judgement system and use the
proposal system instead? Wouldn't that be a lot simpler?
You can get rid of almost anything in favour
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:31 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2014-01-03 at 00:26 -0500, Henri Bouchard wrote:
So couldn't we just get rid of the judgement system and use the
proposal system instead? Wouldn't that be a lot simpler?
You can get rid of almost anything in favour
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:31 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2014-01-03 at 00:26 -0500, Henri Bouchard wrote:
So couldn't we just get rid of the judgement system and use the
proposal system instead? Wouldn't that be a lot simpler?
You can get rid of almost anything in favour
On 14-01-02 11:00 PM, Henri Bouchard wrote:
By the way, are you getting this multiple times?, because when I
simply click reply, the mailing list doesn't seem to deliver the
message, so I have to manually delete DIS: and Re: from the subject
line and change the subject line back to The Simplest
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:42 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
[This isn't the absolute simplest judgement system, but it's probably
the simplest that allows for appeals and such. And it is much simpler
than the current.
FOR, although seems odd to keep the YES and NO bit.
On Fri, 3 Jan 2014, omd wrote:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:42 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
[This isn't the absolute simplest judgement system, but it's probably
the simplest that allows for appeals and such. And it is much simpler
than the current.
FOR, although seems
On 14-01-02 10:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
The Speaker SHALL assign judges over time such that all
interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge.
How would one go about determining how interested players are?
When a Motion to Reconsider is so filed, the case is rendered
open
On Fri, 2014-01-03 at 00:51 -0500, Henri Bouchard wrote:
I guess we need to explore our options with what we can do with the
economy section of the ruleset. We need to add more variables to
this. I know we had the Yak currency before (I think its gone now) but
there wasn't much we could do
On Thu, 2 Jan 2014, Sprocklem wrote:
On 14-01-02 10:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
The Speaker SHALL assign judges over time such that all
interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge.
How would one go about determining how interested players are?
When a Motion to
On Fri, 3 Jan 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
(This may explain the success of
the Agoran Agricultural Association)
Does the complex number thingie sound fun? I had you in mind :)
On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 22:26 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
(This may explain the success of
the Agoran Agricultural Association)
Does the complex number thingie sound fun? I had you in mind :)
It seems like a reasonable starting point (especially in the
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Proposal, AI-1, A Complex Game:
I like this, at least to try playing at least once, although I suspect
it would end up a little random, as, e.g., ^ is practically an instant
win, and, afaict, you must get either that or *
On Fri, 3 Jan 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 22:26 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
(This may explain the success of
the Agoran Agricultural Association)
Does the complex number thingie sound fun? I had you in mind :)
It seems
49 matches
Mail list logo
