I just want to make sure it works as intended since this is an important
amendment. It's possible it does amend the rule but that just wasn't clear
to me.
--
Trigon
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 21:35 James Cook I was thinking of the proposal as two changes: first, the gamestate
> changes, and then,
I was thinking of the proposal as two changes: first, the gamestate
changes, and then, the rule is amended. After the second change, the
ruleset would contain the amended rule.
But I'm not sure proposals are interpreted as a sequence of actions
like that. If it's treated as a bunch of assertions
It also says that the gamestate, excluding the ruleset, is modified to what
it would have been if the amendment took place. Does this override the
amendment itself?
--
Trigon
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 21:29 James Cook It does say "Rule 2124 is amended...". Why wouldn't that happen? I
> don't think
It does say "Rule 2124 is amended...". Why wouldn't that happen? I
don't think the first paragraph referring to it as "the following
amendment" stops it from being an effective part of the proposal on
its own.
It definitely does, to my reading. Can you reread?
-Aris
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 8:27 PM Reuben Staley
wrote:
> I hate to point this out after the distribution, but if I'm correct in my
> reading, this does not actually amend the rule. After this passes, won't
> intents still be broken?
>
> --
I hate to point this out after the distribution, but if I'm correct in my
reading, this does not actually amend the rule. After this passes, won't
intents still be broken?
--
Trigon
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 18:34 D. Margaux Pursuant to the Living Zombie contract, I hereby cause ATMunn to issue the
> Enact a Rule, "Line-item Veto", with the following text:
>
>The Comptrollor is an imposed office. When the office is vacant,
>the ADoP CAN, by announcement, set the Comptrollor to a player
>chosen at random from the set of current Officers, excepting any
>player
The logical rulesets are very long documents. Lots of times, the rulesets
slip through because of that. Check the archives on agoranomic.com. When I
get around to updating the ruleset site, it'll also be there.
--
Trigon
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 21:07 James Cook I don't see this message in the
I don't see this message in the public archive at
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/maillist.html
or at https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/maillist.html
. Same for Trigon's FLR publication around the same time. Does anyone
know why?
On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 at 03:50, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, James Cook wrote:
>
> > 5. Rule 2465 says: "Upon doing so, the specified players win the game."
> > When we talk about "Doing X" for any X, we almost always take X to refer
> > to the Action ("Declaring apathy") and
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2149
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2150
>
> These two judgements distinguish speech acts as being treated
> differently than other types of terms-of-art.
That landing-on-the-moon judgement was about landing on the moon
Sorry about how behind I am on my Promotor reports. I will catch up soon
(the weekend, at latest).
-Aris
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 5:34 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> Pursuant to the Living Zombie contract, I hereby cause ATMunn to issue the
> Cabinet Order of Manifesto to distribute the below proposal,
> On Feb 27, 2019, at 4:24 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Thanks, all! This was fun.
>
> Purses:
> I transfer 25 coins to Galean.
> I transfer 15 coins to Telnaior (bonus award for close 2nd place).
>
> I announce my intent to award Gaelan the unique patent title "Too
> Intense" with 2 Agoran
> On Feb 27, 2019, at 7:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I award D. Margaux the patent title Champion for cheating in politics.
No collusion! WITCH HUNT!
> I award D. Margaux the patent title Champion for succeeding in politics.
>
> Congratulations!
Oh that's right that one wasn't intent-dependent.
And: you spoil my fun! I was definitely planning on pointing the
figure at myself :) Unfortunately, acknowledging that may impact the
situation a little...
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 1:03 PM D. Margaux wrote:
>
> That and also my cheating win.
On 2/26/19 4:34 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote> Reuben Staley
also wrote:
Along the same line, we have the distribution system of proposals. This goes
along with (1), but is still worth mentioning. In most other Nomics, proposals
are immediately put up for voting since one post can represent a
That and also my cheating win.
If you don’t timely-fashion award the other championships and someone pointed a
finger at you, it would be interesting to see whether that conduct can be
retroactively made criminal.
> On Feb 27, 2019, at 11:33 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Due to the dependent
Due to the dependent action bug, I think the only win that is currently owed
"champion" is D. Margaux's most recent Politics win - are there others that
actually succeeded? (the dependent action ones may be fixed retroactively,
but they haven't been yet).
18 matches
Mail list logo
