> On Oct 11, 2017, at 1:58 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> Mostly a happy accident, I guess. I don’t think there’s much of a benefit to
> sneakily doing other actions; I guess if I had a grudge against G. I could
> make a sneaky CFJ then go “HAHAHAHA YOU FAILED TO ASSIGN,” but even that
> doesn’
Mostly a happy accident, I guess. I don’t think there’s much of a benefit to
sneakily doing other actions; I guess if I had a grudge against G. I could make
a sneaky CFJ then go “HAHAHAHA YOU FAILED TO ASSIGN,” but even that doesn’t
directly benefit me (I guess if he ended up with a red card and
Maybe it’s irrational, but I really don’t like the lack of any platonic link to
the text right now. Even if it comes down to the same thing, it feels very
wrong in a nomic. Also, most pledge break punishments I’ve seen are completely
CFJ-free. I’ve seen maybe one or two mooted CFJs relating to p
> On Oct 11, 2017, at 1:43 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> That was quite the emotional roller coaster, though I’ll admit I’m not that
> surprised. On the bright side, we’ve got a precedent for this sort of issues,
> and I’m not cardable for incorrect ratification.
Since you’re around…
On Oct 1
That was quite the emotional roller coaster, though I’ll admit I’m not that
surprised. On the bright side, we’ve got a precedent for this sort of issues,
and I’m not cardable for incorrect ratification.
Gaelan
> On Oct 10, 2017, at 9:05 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2017, VJ Rada
On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 01:11 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> I gave up trying to decompose “breaking a pledge” for rules - they’re
> fundamentally subjective things, and trying to give them platonic
> effects unambiguously is probably impossible. If it’s going to come
> down to a CFJ anyways, then usi
This reminds me: I establish PPP (the π=2 version).
> On Oct 10, 2017, at 8:46 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
>
> Bringing back EOH, which contrary to my previous listings, does indeed
> still exist. Also no more MKD. Otherwise, no changes.
>
> I accept o's CoE (which of course, is not a real CoE because n
> On Oct 9, 2017, at 1:06 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> Actually never mind, the new pledge rule makes it nearly impossible.
>
> Did we really just make it take Agoran consent to enforce pledges at all?
> That completely neuters pledges if you ask me. Ugh.
We did.
I gave up trying to deco
> On Oct 11, 2017, at 12:47 AM, VJ Rada wrote:
>
> PF
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 3:46 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
>> CoE: Between your last report and this one, I bought a stamp from
>> Agora. I'm COEing bc obviously that would change the values again.
This mechanism is _shockingly_ brittle. Let’
> On Oct 9, 2017, at 1:17 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> For the record, I’ve been re-wrapping rules as I touch them. Looking at the
> ruleset now, however, I’m not sure if I’ve been indenting to the right width…
>
> By the way: does anybody know of a markdown-aware automatic line wrapper?
> I’
CoE: Between your last report and this one, I bought a stamp from
Agora. I'm COEing bc obviously that would change the values again.
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> On Oct 11, 2017, at 12:23 AM, VJ Rada wrote:
>
>> coe: when aris incorrectly awarded emself 7 shinies, e al
On Oct 11, 2017, at 12:17 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> As Secretary, I flip the Floating Value to 20.
I’m still waiting for the other shoe to drop on G.’s bid for Dawsbergen. I’m
sure e had a reason to stop me from paying a bunch of shinies to Agora, but I’m
at a loss to figure out what that rea
I intend to create this agency.
Name: Outsourcing Rada's Personhood
Abbreviation: ORP
Head: VJ Rada
Agents: All persons
Powers:
IMMUTABLE POWERS
Agents of this agency have the power to intend to amend and to amend
this agency on behalf of VJ Rada. These amendments may not give anyone
the p
> On Oct 10, 2017, at 11:25 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
>
> I apologise, this was just a draft that I unintentionally sent, not a
> real report.
I retract my chiding! Thanks for the explanation.
-o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
> On Oct 10, 2017, at 11:24 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
>
> I had assumed this report self-ratified, and therefore that EOH was no
> longer an agency. But of course, it doesn't, so EOH remains an agency.
> MKD has also been revoked. Otherwise, this is the same as my previous
> report.
I’m not completely
I apologise, this was just a draft that I unintentionally sent, not a
real report.
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 2:24 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
> I had assumed this report self-ratified, and therefore that EOH was no
> longer an agency. But of course, it doesn't, so EOH remains an agency.
> MKD has also been
On Oct 9, 2017, at 12:03 AM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> I claim a reward of 7 shinies for publishing the Promotor's report. I
> pay 2 shinies to the Community Chest, and 2 to Agora.
I can’t figure this out. How did you arrive at 7 sh.?
-o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
> On Oct 8, 2017, at 7:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> When discussion of email dates started, I mentioned that messing with
> email formats is one of those things that's generally Not Done, as it's
> a pain in the rear generally and makes us distrust the medium in ways
> we can't protect ag
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Is there an explicit definition of spend/to spend (for assets) in the ruleset
> that I'm missing? I know there's one specific to AP but that's a special
> mechanism.
>
> (I don't think it's a current-rules issue if it's undefined, because common
> def
Is there an explicit definition of spend/to spend (for assets) in the ruleset
that I'm missing? I know there's one specific to AP but that's a special
mechanism.
(I don't think it's a current-rules issue if it's undefined, because common
definitions + definition of close-enough synonym "pay"
Arguments: Rule 683 identifies a ballot in the sentence "An entity
submits a ballot on an Agoran decision by publishing a notice
satisfying the following conditions". Presumably, the notice is what
is being referred to as a ballot. The fact that the ballot is a notice
is very important, because it
Give me a few more hours please to provide arguments. Sorry I'm late.
-Aris
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> The main issue I have with your judgement is not the trust tokens, it's
> this very clear statement at the end of the rule paragraph:
> "If the option cannot be c
Ok, thanks. I will definitely confess that I didn't take that clause into
account, so I'll look at things more carefully when I get to this.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 at 12:12 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> The main issue I have with your judgement is not the trust tokens, it's
> this very clear statement a
The main issue I have with your judgement is not the trust tokens, it's
this very clear statement at the end of the rule paragraph:
"If the option cannot be clearly identified, a vote of PRESENT is cast."
This clause is independent of the timing clauses earlier in the paragraph,
and by Rule 2240
I don't have the time to fully go through this right yet, though I know my
reconsideration deadline is coming up soon. I will start by saying that the
effect of this judgment on trust tokens is potentially unfortunate, but
that the point of Nomic is to play the game as written, not the way that we
"At the discretion of a judge" is an awful way to put in, because you're
explicitly tying the platonic gamestate to the whims of a judge. It's
basically saying "a loop fails or doesn't fail; whether it does so is
completely up to a judge who can only look at the case later". What is the
game state
Yes; no. I’ll try and get a revision in Tuesday evening.
> On Oct 9, 2017, at 11:53 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> You mean "Another Economy Fix Attempt", right? Did you ever revise
> that? I can't find anything except the original version (I'm preparing
> a revised Promotor report).
>
> -Aris
27 matches
Mail list logo
