Yes... although now it occurs to me that *possibly* I could engineer a
paradox by self filing for reconsideration and judging FALSE! I *think*
that would work assuming I could prevent it from going to moot, perhaps by
objecting every 48 hours until it requires too much support to go into
moot.
On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, ATMunn wrote:
Kinda dark, but interesting. And since Agora has been going on for so long
and doesn't seem like it will stop anytime soon, even thought it would be
sad, it's not a complete impossibility.
Even darker, it may already have happened without us knowing.
That works too, and is less confusing. I was trying to avoid an INEFFECTIVE
action, but I don’t suppose anyone's going to be claiming a No Faking
violation.
-Aris
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 5:22 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Not *quite*. Trigon, just delivering your judgements is best I think!
>
>
Not *quite*. Trigon, just delivering your judgements is best I think!
Whether or not you are the judge is the subject of CFJs, even if the
judgement is TRUE. The safest thing is to just deliver them as if
this whole conversation didn't happen, and if it ends up you weren't
the judge, no
This is what I thought as well, but G. seems to be saying that it's possible
Trigon and D. Margaux are _both_ the judge of CFJ 3672. I'm a bit hazy on the
details. Maybe wait for G. to give eir opinion before doing anything?
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, October 30, 2018
As I understand it, for CFJ 3672 it's unclear whether you’re actually the
judge. If you want to judge it TRUE, you should post your opinion, but not
attempt to assign the judgement. If you want to judge it FALSE, you should
both post your opinion and assign the judgement. The reason for this is
Short summary:
I tried to engineer a possible PARADOX by attempting to yank the CFJ from you
by certiorari, which would be EFFECTIVE only if the CFJ is TRUE.
G. pointed out that no matter what you do or would have decided on that CFJ,
there’s actually no PARADOX after all. Womp womp.
So the
Okay, this is very confusing. Can someone give me a short description of
what happened and what I need to do now? Should I just publish the
judgement for 3671-3 that I was already planning on publishing?
On 10/29/2018 11:16 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I think the critical question here is to
Kinda dark, but interesting. And since Agora has been going on for so
long and doesn't seem like it will stop anytime soon, even thought it
would be sad, it's not a complete impossibility.
On 10/29/2018 12:58 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
This randomly occurred to me recently.
Rule 869/44
NttPF.
On 10/28/2018 10:56 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
Votes, as well as a proposal, inline.
Gaelan
On Oct 28, 2018, at 6:16 PM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
pool. For
Fair points. It just doesn't quite feel right to me. I might change my
vote, maybe not.
On 10/28/2018 10:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2018, ATMunn wrote:
8122 Murphy 3.0 Middle of the road
AGAINST, this doesn't have any actual effect at the moment and it just
> On Oct 29, 2018, at 1:24 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> The general idea of a sandbox isn't a bad one. But I don't think
> "making and destroying a copy of Agora" is straightforward if you
> intent that the copy starts with the same players/gamestate.
>
> The first red flag to me is
On the plus side, speeding up all aspects of the game is surprisingly
easy. Just re-write or override Rule 1023 (Agoran Time, power-2) to
indicate that time in the sandbox moves X times faster than baseline
time (a pain to recordkeep, but conceptually easy and seamless).
[It's come up a
The general idea of a sandbox isn't a bad one. But I don't think
"making and destroying a copy of Agora" is straightforward if you
intent that the copy starts with the same players/gamestate.
The first red flag to me is that this drafts current players into a
sandbox Agora (i.e. a new
Title: Break the Rules Week
Power: 1
The _th week of _ is known as Break the Rules Week.
At the beginning of Break the Rules Week, a copy of Agora, known as the
Sandbox, is created; the copy does not include this rule. Within this rule,
Agora refers only to the original copy, and not to the
On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
> > On Oct 29, 2018, at 1:47 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > This isn't a paradox though. The situation is resolved
> > by calling a new CFJ.
>
> I suppose that’s a fair point.
>
> In that case, if Trigon judges FALSE, the CFJ i called earlier today
> On Oct 29, 2018, at 1:47 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> This isn't a paradox though. The situation is resolved
> by calling a new CFJ.
I suppose that’s a fair point.
In that case, if Trigon judges FALSE, the CFJ i called earlier today would
determine which judgement prevails, I suppose
On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
> Basically, if Trigon tried to judge it FALSE, we would have two
> judgements that are mutually inconsistent, that each if valid would
> prevent the other’s judge from issuing the inconsistent judgement,
> and with no way to decide between them.
>
>
> On Oct 29, 2018, at 1:16 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> If Trigon would find that D. Margaux is not laureled, then it's
> fine too: all of D. Margaux attempts failed (e didn't become
> Speaker, and e didn't assign the case to emself).
>
> I'm not seeing PARADOX results or anything more
I think the critical question here is to Trigon. If Trigon's
judgement is TRUE and reasonable enough not to trigger appeal,
then all is fine - D. Margaux happened to deliver it first, but
the arguments came from a neutral source (since D. Margaux, in
eir judgement attempt, explicitly deferred
> On Oct 29, 2018, at 12:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> So, why Moots are the wrong approach here.
>
> So on a first look, there's nothing in the Rules to forbid an open CFJ
> from having two judges simultaneously. R991 only allows the Arbitor
> to assign judges to cases with no
On Sun, 28 Oct 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
8121 G. 3.0 Retroactive Documents
PRESENT. There are arguments for and against doing this and I am not
convinced which way to go.
This was a result of a discussion between me and G. on a rather subtle
point, where it took a
See:
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3411
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3412
On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> This randomly occurred to me recently.
>
> Rule 869/44 indicates that a dead organism is not a person, because it is not
>
So, why Moots are the wrong approach here.
So on a first look, there's nothing in the Rules to forbid an open CFJ
from having two judges simultaneously. R991 only allows the Arbitor
to assign judges to cases with no judge, so that prevents multiple
judges in most situations. But the
This randomly occurred to me recently.
Rule 869/44 indicates that a dead organism is not a person, because it is not
capable of thinking. So if an organism who was a player died, e would cease to
be a person and COULD NOT be a player any longer. But this is not the same as
"deregistering",
Ah, fair enough. I also issued general permission for anyone to act on my
behalf to fulfill that intent, but I suppose I could revoke that (not that I
would do).
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, October 29, 2018 4:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I know, but the Overpowered
This is really adding to the uncertainty, for reasons I'll explain in a bit.
Please hold off on the Moot. Especially, don't do it with a CONDITIONAL
announcement of intent or action because that compounds the paradox.
On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> No autocracies please. If
I know, but the Overpowered version of act w/intent doesn't allow me to
act on others' intent. If D. Margaux resigns from PM, and whomever
announced intent yesterday is satisfied with em stepping down from PM
and doesn't carry through with eir intent, I wanted the option of removal
for the
No need. Demanding Resignation vacates _all_ the player's officers, not just
the ones making em Overpowered, so my own announced intent works for these too.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, October 29, 2018 3:23 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> D. Margaux is both Arbitor and
> On Oct 29, 2018, at 11:20 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, D Margaux wrote:
>> From the Arbitor’s Weekly:
>>
>>> 3672 called 15 October 2018 by D. Margaux, assigned to Trigon 20
>>> October 2018: "Trigon, twg, D. Margaux, G., and L could win the game
>>> by announcement
On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> From the Arbitor’s Weekly:
>
> > 3672 called 15 October 2018 by D. Margaux, assigned to Trigon 20
> > October 2018: "Trigon, twg, D. Margaux, G., and L could win the game
> > by announcement under rule 2580 on the Effective Date after the
> > expungement
31 matches
Mail list logo
