On 6/20/2019 9:56 PM, James Cook wrote:
Summary: I can't find any particular reason it's phrased that way.
I can't remember any particular discussion over that phrase either.
I *do* remember that the "limit, allow, enable, or permit" absolutely *was*
assumed to include SHALL NOTs as making
Reading this, I feel like it asserts that (at least) one of these two
things is correct, but I'm not sure which:
- If two different people claim to do the same thing, they are different
"actions" because different people do them. Person A triggering Side
Game Suspension is a different action t
Here's an updated version to fix some of the issues in the first version:
Changes:
- G.'s suggestion ("regulation-creating entity" -> "regulation-creating")
- Regulation-creating -> binding
- Fixing omd's issue
- Replacing the last paragraph and list of Rule 1742 to permit contracts
to regulate
I don't think sending a message saying you flip a switch causes the switch
to flip just because you said it and it's unregulated. I think this is the
"I say I do, therefore I do" (ISIDTID) fallacy someone told me about on
this list recently.
If I understand right, the only reason to describe regul
I would like to remain as Promotor, if the public doesn’t mind.
-Aris
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 4:40 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I support the intent for ADoP.
>
> If any non-incumbent supports the others and notes that they want to be a
> candidate, I'll support those too. Happy to keep doing tai
Does this happen to be the thread
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg46478.html ?
If so, what ais523 seems to be saying (please forgive me if I
misunderstand) is what the Rules state about specifically regulated
actions. Obviously (well, maybe not so obviously give
Murhpy’s statement is true, it’s just incomplete. It’s not true that
unregulated actions CAN intrinsically be performed by announcement, but it
is true that regulated actions CANNOT be performed except as the rules
explicitly permit. To put this another way, there may be nothing in the
rules that s
I think the problem is that you’re taking “only works if” in Murphy’s
original text and turning it into “works if and only if” or perhaps even
“works if”.
Ah, thank you. I did make a wrong assumption about that. Yeah, the rest
of my argument does crumble because of that.
For that would ma
It’s kind of hard to communicate subtleties over text, so just so I’m
clear: I’d really, really, really like to remain Promotor. :)
-Aris
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 5:53 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would like to remain as Promotor, if the public doesn’t mind.
>
That doesn't sound suspicious at all...
Jason Cobb
On 6/21/19 10:28 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
It’s kind of hard to communicate subtleties over text, so just so I’m
clear: I’d really, really, really like to remain Promotor. :)
-Aris
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 5:53 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflife
You can do so due to this clause from Rule 2595:
4. At least one of the following is true:
* the performer is the initiator;
* the initiator was authorized to perform the action due to
holding a rule-defined position now held by the p
I have zero objection to Aris maintaining that role
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 12:40 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I assure you, I’m not plotting anything malevolent. I just really enjoy the
> work, and it’s become part of my routine. I’d deeply miss it if no longer
Yes, but then I’d be installed into the relevant office. I don’t want
another office at the moment, and anyway, it would be rude to take it from
R. Lee.
-Aris
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 7:36 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> You can do so due to this clause from Rule 2595:
>
> >4. At least one of the
Would you actually be installed into the office? Rule 2598 says
5. A player CAN with 2 support Revive Spaaace (unless Spaaace has
already been Revived); that player is thereby installed into
the office of Astronomor.
I think the most obvious reading is that "that pla
How exactly does one abuse the position of Promotor? It doesn't seem
like the office has much discretion over what it does. The only thing I
can see is deciding whether or not to retry FAILED QUORUM proposals.
Changing the text of a proposal (or something like that) could probably
be construed
We've always taken it to mean the player who actually takes the action that
requires support. For example, I have intended to initiate elections but I
also don't want three of those positions, so I will leave anyone who does
to actually resolve the intent.
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 12:46 PM Jason Co
Ah sorry about that then.
Jason Cobb
On 6/21/19 10:53 PM, Rebecca wrote:
We've always taken it to mean the player who actually takes the action that
requires support. For example, I have intended to initiate elections but I
also don't want three of those positions, so I will leave anyone who do
Don't be sorry for interpreting the rules! I say this only because it's
just what I've always remembered. Also I've taken the office so it doesn't
matter now!
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 12:55 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Ah sorry about that then.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/21/19 10:53 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> >
You can change the order of proposals as Promotor or Assessor which
sometimes affects a lot. Also they can still change the text and hope that
nobody notices until it becomes self-ratifying.
Also support my ADoP intent
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 12:48 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> How exactly does one abu
The Promotor has discretion over when e distributes proposals, which
is surprisingly important for scams. There are some scams that depend
on very tight timing, usually because they require something to be
done at the end of the voting period. For instance, there was once a
scam where people could
Just to add, the reason we read it that way is because that's how the
dependent action rules are written. They're retrospective; if X and Y
has happened, a player can do Z by announcement. The doing Z is
actually taking the action - the business about announcing intent is
just a precondition. This
This proposal codifies a few common sense rules about timelines. For
instance, retroactive modifications are possible, but work by creating
a legal fiction, rather than by changing what actually happened. It
also establishes one major new rule: the standard sequence of events
is secured at power 3.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 8:24 PM Aris Merchant
wrote:
> This proposal codifies a few common sense rules about timelines. For
> instance, retroactive modifications are possible, but work by creating
> a legal fiction, rather than by changing what actually happened.
Overall: Seems quite well designe
On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 20:00 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Anyhow, I've been contacted for scams at least twice, and refused to
> actively help each time.
This is the the first thing you've said that's left me less than fully
onboard with you as Promotor :-D
(I miss the days when you could bribe o
A few small nitpicks:
On the objective timeline, the consequences of an action or event
Consistent capitalization please :)
and cannot be retroactively modified
CANNOT? I know you later state that changing it is IMPOSSIBLE w/o time
travel, so this might not be strictly necessary
"The
You could still bribe them with getting a win in the scam, if it's proposal
based. Maybe with the text "X gets a win, then Y gets a win", therefore
making the scammer the speaker. This is actually my one regret with the one
time I win the game, I should have made me win last haha.
On Sat, Jun 22,
CFJs are technically nonbinding, platonically, so a SHOULD is fine.
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 1:53 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> A few small nitpicks:
>
> > On the objective timeline, the consequences of an action or event
> Consistent capitalization please :)
>
>
> > and cannot be retroactively modified
Thank you for all the comments! My responses are inline.
> Overall: Seems quite well designed. Personally I'd prefer to just ban
> retroactive modifications, but this proposal would do a good job of
> codifying the existing precedent.
Thank you! Banning retroactivity might be more elegant, in a
Thanks for the comments! Responses inline.
> > On the objective timeline, the consequences of an action or event
> Consistent capitalization please :)
Fixed, by switching to caps everywhere.
>
> > and cannot be retroactively modified
>
> CANNOT? I know you later state that changing it is IMPOSSIB
Is anyone else interested in Rulekeepor right now? If you are, I'm good
with letting an election play out, though I really do enjoy the job.
On 6/21/19 5:31 PM, Rebecca wrote:
I intend to initiate elections for Promotor, Tailor, ADoP and Rulekeepor,
with two support (90 days having passed)
(I
On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 21:20 -0700, omd wrote:
> Proposal: Deregulation (AI=3)
>
> Repeal Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions").
>
> Amend Rule 2152 ("Mother, May I?") by appending after
>
> 5. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.
>
> the following:
>
> For gam
There should likely at least be a reference to
recordkeepor information.
If this gets included, could your proposal clearly resolve CFJ 3740 in
the new Ruleset, please?
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 12:26 AM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 21:20 -0700, omd wrote:
Proposal:
This leaves it undefined what a game-defined action is.
It was a term of art that my proposal would have created. Just
incorporating my definition here doesn't work as it was "An action is
game-defined if and only if it is a regulated action of some binding
entity." That obviously doesn't help
Okay, after hearing your logic, I think agree with your general ideas
here, but I'd really like #1 and #2 to be explicitly specified
somewhere. It would give us something to direct new players to, and
something to cite in CFJs when the principle comes up. Would you be
opposed to such an explicit pr
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:03 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Contracts CAN define new actions. These actions CAN only be
> sequences of actions that are game-defined, but may include
> conditionals, repetition, and other similar constructs.
This seems like it could allow contracts
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:33 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> > This leaves it undefined what a game-defined action is.
> It was a term of art that my proposal would have created. Just
> incorporating my definition here doesn't work as it was "An action is
> game-defined if and only if it is a regulated act
I wasn't intending to refer to that definition. By "game-defined
action" I simply mean an action which is defined by the game, i.e.
which exists as a platonic entity because of a definition found in the
rules. I admit this could be made more explicit.
Without defining "game-defined", arguably
I would oppose this because of my usual opposition to rules that state
things that are obvious and known by all, the fact that I am Oath-bound to
vote AGAINST proposals that add net text, and the fact that rules are not
fun and implied doctrines are very fun.
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 2:33 PM Aris M
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:26 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
> This leaves it undefined what a game-defined action is. In particular,
> the new version of the rules leaves it unclear whether it's possible to
> attempt to do something that's not defined by the rules but which would
> change the
Thanks! Responses inline.
Jason Cobb
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:03 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
Contracts CAN define new actions. These actions CAN only be
sequences of actions that are game-defined, but may include
conditionals, repetition, and other similar constructs.
T
Done right, it might remove net text. Things that are obvious and
known by all should not be codified; the record will show you that
this is no so such thing. Implicit doctrines create messes. They have
their place, but they should be codified and made binding law.
-Aris
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:44 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> > I wasn't intending to refer to that definition. By "game-defined
> > action" I simply mean an action which is defined by the game, i.e.
> > which exists as a platonic entity because of a definition found in the
> > rules. I admit this could
But messes are more fun...
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 2:55 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Done right, it might remove net text. Things that are obvious and
> known by all should not be codified; the record will show you that
> this is no so such thing. Implicit doctr
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:55 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> >
> >> Contracts CAN require or forbid actions that are defined in
> >> other binding entities. To the extent specified by the Rules,
> >> contracts CAN define or regulate other actions. Any actions that
> >> m
I think it's okay, given that that clause has an explicit "To the extent
specified by the Rules".
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 1:00 AM, omd wrote:
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:55 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
Contracts CAN require or forbid actions that are defined in
other binding entities
Proto: Deregulation, but less so
Amend Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions") to read:
An action is regulated if it:
(a) consists of altering Rules-defined state (e.g. the act of
flipping a Citizenship switch), or
(b) is a Rules-defined term of art with no inherent meaning
In my view, "inherent meaning" is a bit vague. I certainly could write
up a document that suggests a change to the laws of my country, print a
bunch of copies, and then start handing them out to everyone I know.
That seems like it would fulfill a natural language meaning of
"distributing a prop
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:53 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> In my view, "inherent meaning" is a bit vague. I certainly could write
> up a document that suggests a change to the laws of my country, print a
> bunch of copies, and then start handing them out to everyone I know.
> That seems like it would fu
On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 22:57 -0700, omd wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:53 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> > In my view, "inherent meaning" is a bit vague. I certainly could write
> > up a document that suggests a change to the laws of my country, print a
> > bunch of copies, and then start handing them
Well, one of the many such precedents stretching back forever.
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 4:00 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 22:57 -0700, omd wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:53 PM Jason Cobb
> wrote:
> > > In my view, "inherent meaning"
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:57 PM omd wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:53 PM Jason Cobb
> wrote:
> > In my view, "inherent meaning" is a bit vague. I certainly could write
> > up a document that suggests a change to the laws of my country, print a
> > bunch of copies, and then start handing th
51 matches
Mail list logo
