On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 19:05, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> the ratio of supporters to objectors is no more than N, and the
> > action has no supporters or at least one objector.
>
> Dumb basic formal logic question that I should really know the answer to:
>
> If O=0, the ratio S/O is
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 14:48, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On 2/14/2019 6:27 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > When I stumbled across this, my guess was that at some point, the
> > rules were re-arranged so that Rule 1728 is responsible everything
> > about Notice, where Rule 2124 was previously, and in the
I agree with Ørjan's opinion here, that a dependent action specifying
multiple conditions is supposed to require all of those conditions.
For example, the "and" between 2 and 3 is evidence of this intent.
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 01:06, Madeline wrote:
>
> Suggested wording:
>
> Agora is Satisfied
Here's a draft implementing Ørjan's suggestion:
Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if
and only if all of the following are true:
1. If the action is to be performed Without N Objections, then it
has fewer than N objectors.
2. If the
No, it's one where you promise not to act unless both are fulfilled.
Greetings,
Ørjan, who keeps seeing more and more evidence that humans are naturally
bad at this kind of distinction.
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Madeline wrote:
How so? Does it need to have both enough support and a lack of
How so? Does it need to have both enough support and a lack of
objectors? Do we even have anything right now that works that way? Do we
*want* to have anything right now that works that way?
If it's one where you choose which one to declare your intent with, I
don't see how it causes a problem.
Quoting myself from my response to D. Margaux:
"That breaks if intents are allowed to be both with objection and with
support."
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Madeline wrote:
Suggested wording:
Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if and only if
one or more
Suggested wording:
Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if and only if
one or more of the following are true:
1. the action is to be performed Without N Objections and it
has fewer than N objectors;
2. the action is to be performed With N support
I added the negation because I was worried about interpretations of
whether "if X then Y" is true. With classical logic, we may interpret
that as "not X or Y", which would work great, but it could also be
interpreted as the list entry only being present if X is there, so
we'd end up with "if all
I don't like the essential double negation in this - if people were
confused about what the previous version means, then that's just going to
make it worse. And I'm not convinced #3 means what you want if there are
supporters and no objectors - undefined values mess up logic.
Instead I'd
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote:
The way it should work is for Agora to be satisfied if any of (1)
through (4) are satisfied. That is, Agora is “satisfied” if there were
fewer than N objections and the action was without N objections; OR if
there are more than N supporters and the action
Agora might be a cooperative, along with the many other things it is.
-o
> On Feb 9, 2019, at 11:31 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> I’ve always thought of Agora as more of a non-profit corporation, although
> I guess it’s currently an unincorporated association. Walruses were an
> asset once,
Thank you for including me—I do appreciate that gesture. :-)
It was actually twg’s first contract that led me to inspect the relevant
contract provisions more closely, and caused me to find the loophole. So I do
think it’s only fair that twg get full 100% credit for this loophole, and I
Sure! I considered it fair game because you "pointed it out" to me
privately around the same time that twg published eir first contract
(but e didn't "point it out" at that time so your thoughts were
original). But I'm happy to respect that.
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 11:23 AM D. Margaux wrote:
>
H. Herald: I ask that my entry be withdrawn, because it’s in essence
duplicative of twg’s which came first.
> On Feb 14, 2019, at 2:13 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Didn't notice that was meant as a specific entry as opposed to
> follow-on conversation!The brief was "most interesting or fun
Didn't notice that was meant as a specific entry as opposed to
follow-on conversation!The brief was "most interesting or fun
Rules loophole or unexpected Rules interaction" and this is definitely
an interesting and unexpected Rules interaction (and while it didn't
turn out to be dangerous, the
> the ratio of supporters to objectors is no more than N, and the
> action has no supporters or at least one objector.
Dumb basic formal logic question that I should really know the answer to:
If O=0, the ratio S/O is undefined.
Does (S/O = undefined) => (S/O > N) = FALSE? Or
Damn, I thought my Agora = Contract thing would count but it's true that it
doesn't really *scam* anything, it's just a perspective shift on the
Ruleset.
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 7:28 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Read the Ruleset Week Contest - update
>
> Before I give opinions or try to start a
To re-iterate a note I made at the start of all that noise: I
recognize we might not be in agreement about how Rule 2124 is supposed
to work, but I at least want the current version of my proposal to
reflect my own thinking clearly.
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 18:36, James Cook wrote:
>
> Sorry for
On 2/14/2019 6:45 AM, James Cook wrote:
But I also thought, because of that, that we were supposed to be able to
say things like "with support and no objection". If that doesn't get used
anywhere, maybe we should clarify that Agoran Satisfaction is an or, and
include #4 as "the action is to be
On 2/14/2019 6:27 AM, James Cook wrote:
When I stumbled across this, my guess was that at some point, the
rules were re-arranged so that Rule 1728 is responsible everything
about Notice, where Rule 2124 was previously, and in the process, (4)
was supposed to be removed from 2124. But that's
What if we change the Agoran Satisfaction rule to be a bit closer to my
pedantic elabouration, by saying "if and only if all of the following are
true", and making each individual condition automatically true of the
condition it refers to isn't part of the dependent action's requirements?
Then
> On Feb 14, 2019, at 9:27 AM, James Cook wrote:
>
> That would work, because Rule 1728 already covers notice: "3. If the
> action is to be performed With T Notice, if the intent was announced
> at least T earlier.". Is there anything wrong with leaving it that way
> (which would be
> The way it should work is for Agora to be satisfied if any of (1) through (4)
> are satisfied. That is, Agora is “satisfied” if there were fewer than N
> objections and the action was without N objections; OR if there are more than
> N supporters and the action was with N support; OR the
If anything, I'm still getting a lot of Agora into my spam folder. Using
plebeian gmail.
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 04:24, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2019, James Cook wrote:
>
> > I was unable to subscribe jc...@cs.berkeley.edu to the Agora lists
> (except
> > tue), but was able to
Lol, I slap my knee, good find.
The Ruleset seems like its an overall inconsistent, a chimera of individual
styles of writing. For example, R1728 also has a list (posted below), yet
it *does not* follow the style of connection like the one Falsifan has
pointed out.
A rule which purports to
Nice find. This is definitely a badly worded rule, and in need of fixing!
“Agoran Satisfaction” refers to meeting the specific conditions for performing
an action by a particular method. So, for example, Agora is satisfied if there
are 0 objections and the action is Without N Objections, but it
Well, if you assume an "or" between each clause, then it means Agora is
always satisfied with the intent if the intent is "with T notice" (meaning
once the waiting period has past, no count of supporters or objectors is
needed), eg: Satisfied if (support AND enough support) OR (objections AND
(Also, how did #4 end up in that rule?)
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 13:38, James Cook wrote:
>
> If my CFJ is judged true, I welcome any proposal that would avoid
> messing up all those past dependent actions. I feel bad depriving
> anyone of a well-earned victory. Is there a clean way to do that?
>
If my CFJ is judged true, I welcome any proposal that would avoid
messing up all those past dependent actions. I feel bad depriving
anyone of a well-earned victory. Is there a clean way to do that?
I suppose I could draft a proposal that some specific effects happen,
e.g. "I propose that Gaelan
30 matches
Mail list logo
