G. wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014, Henri Bouchard wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Jonathan Rouillard
wrote:
P.S: Oh, and AGAINST, by the way. I don't see why that would be
needed. All it does is getting rid of Yet Another Fun, Quirky Thing
From Agora, and unless I've missed some conver
ais523 wrote:
On Fri, 2014-05-09 at 15:05 -0400, omd wrote:
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Henri Bouchard wrote:
I CfJ: The Assessor, scshunt, failed to end the voting period for
proposals 7641-7642 in 7 days, thereby violating Rules 107 and 2143.
Scshunt has therefore committed the Class-2
Yally wrote:
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Henri Bouchard wrote:
I intend, without objection, to deregister the following players:
aperfectring
Bayushi
Cole Jackson
Ludwig
nichdel
Philomory
Schrodinger's Cat
Shredder
Telnaior
Thimblefox
William Ei
scshunt wrote:
Amend Rule 2154 (Election Procedure) by
a) deleting "or the office is Assumed" and
b) deleting bullets 2) and 3) and renumbering that list accordingly
Can we just get rid of elections unless we're actually going to do
something with them, like the constants-set-as-part-of-campai
scshunt wrote:
judicial functions to a new office (maybe not the Clerk... the Arbitor
or something. This would remove the connotation of impartiality that
Murphy gave the Clerk). Then we can look at figurehead reform once
Oh, so it's all /my/ fault. I see how it is. :)
scshunt wrote:
Amend Rule 991 (Calls for Judgment) by
a) inserting, between the second and third paragraphs, "The Arbitor is
an office, responsible for the administration of justice in a manner
that is fair for emself, if not for the rest of Agora."
b) replacing the occurrences of "Speaker" with
Fool wrote:
On 2014-01-12 1:39 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Player Inactive since
-- --
aperfectring 13 Dec 13
Roujo 9 Jan 14
all others 20 Oct 13
I have been inactive since Sept 5.
http://www.mail
Henri Bouchard wrote:
I vote:
FOR Proposal 7611
FOR Proposal 7612
FOR Proposal 7613
NttPF
Henri Bouchard wrote:
All official motions must be in bold and italics and begin with
AGAINST
Pavitra wrote:
On 12/29/2013 06:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Quadrant is a player switch with values 1 (default), 2, 3, and
4, each referring to a different quadrant in the complex plane.
Perhaps instead:
Quadrant is a player switch whose possible values are the
q
scshunt wrote:
I withdraw the case.
NttPF
G. wrote:
Are there enough willing to commit to an office or 2 for
a firm month at least to make this worth catching up on?
Need at least:
Promotor
Assessor
Registrar
CotC
Rulekeepor
I'm up for Registrar, I let this entire e-mail account go for a
couple months but I'm getting back to it now.
I wrote:
Regarding ais523's proposal to change quorum, I suggest retaining a
minimum of "5 or the number of active players, whichever is less".
"5 or the number of eligible voters", rather.
Fool wrote:
On 2013-10-22 1:41 PM, Thelas Staloras wrote:
== CFJ 3397 ==
proposal 7568 passed.
Caller: Fool
Judge:
ais523 wrote:
As such, my suggestion for what to do next (which needs to be written up
in legalese), is along the following lines:
FOR
Roujo wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I pay the Election Fee to initiate an election for this Office.
I nominate myself for that Office, with a clearly specified proposed
salary of 1 Yak less than the highest proposed salary
Measured at what time?
among the can
G. wrote:
Proto-proto: To the Land Again
What happens if we roll a 7?
I wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, if democratization succeeded, then TRUE
because exactly 1 vote per player was effective; if it failed, then
FALSE because none of omd's attempts reported both Walker's and
woggle's vote counts correctly.
So: Was democratization indeed blocked by a Geronto
== CFJ 3397 ==
proposal 7568 passed.
Proto-judgement:
Relevant events:
Mon 5 Aug 2013 22:48:45 -0400 omd attempts to distribute, covering the
possibilities that the Chamber is Ordinary, Green, Red, or Purple
Sat 24 Aug 2013 2
Fool wrote:
I cash the promise "Zombie G.", specifying action: {
I cash the promise "Squared Zombies!" (author aperfectring),
specifying action: {
I cash the promise "Whack Em", specifying target Murphy
}
}
oif
Walker wrote:
This was a reference to a rule from a few years ago: basically, your
voting limit varied based on a rock-paper-scissors type interaction
between your chamber and that of the proposal's author.
Was that any good? I don't think I hung around long enough to see how that
played out
James Beirne wrote:
As the recently-appointed Outlander Speaker of nommit
(http://www.reddit.com/r/nommit), I have the pleasure of informing you
that you have been officially recognized (and declared NEUTRAL) by our
burgeoning nomic. Following as it does your recent recognition of us, I
am confi
James Beirne wrote:
The first thing that comes to my head is to be less restrictive and
protective of the status quo. We don't want to irrevocably ruin the
game, but it seems like there's a culture of disliking anything new.
Now, novel mechanics and applications of existing mechanics do pass fro
G. wrote:
This final reduction, after a period of inactivity, was followed by the
drastic INCREASE of CFJs in 2007-2008. No sure whether to find cause and
effect there at all!
That was the era of partnerships. So some of those CFJs were to sort
out how/whether those worked, and others were e
Fool wrote:
On 01/08/2013 1:34 PM, omd wrote:
* I also attempt to distribute this with Chamber of each of Green,
Red, and Purple (in that case, the proposal is separately Ordinary).
What's that about? Nice colour scheme though.
This was a reference to a rule from a few years ago: basicall
omd wrote:
Consider the statement "Iff this statement is true, I am a banana." I
could CFJ on it, if necessary.
Per previously mentioned entirely constructivist arguments, we can
conclude from the /existence/ of this statement that I am a banana.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH5ay10RTGY
Walker wrote:
Have we ever interacted with non-players other than Bucky?
I deregistered for about a month during the partnership era, while
continuing to act via the AFO partnership (basically "any partner
can unilaterally cause the partnership to act by announcement").
Bucky wrote:
Did you miss the point of the arguments?
"no interpretation of Agoran law or
binding agreement may substantially limit"
=> "interpretations of Agoran law or
binding agreement MAY NOT substantially limit"
=> Substantially limiting is ILLEGAL
"may" != "MAY"
Machiavelli wrote:
http://nomic.zbasu.net/nomicbank/userinfo/murphy/ – replace "murphy"
with any Agoran player's nickname
I feel singled out, somehow.
Lindar Greenwood wrote:
I announce a CFJ on the following text:
{ Announcing in Agora-Business the creation of a promise that, upon
being cashed, causes the player cashing said promise to break a rule,
does not cause the creator of said promise to violate R2394, nor does
it cause the creator of
G. wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote:
On Wed, 2013-07-03 at 12:03 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote:
I was wondering how you created a submarine contract using promises.
What exactly do you mean by a "submarine contract"? Just a private
one? Or somet
Walker wrote:
> On 2 July 2013 13:10, Ed Murphy wrote:
scshunt wrote:
I hereby initiate the Agoran Decision to select the Herald. The
candidates are scshunt and G., each with Proposed Salary 100.
The valid options are the candidates, the eligible voters are the
active players, and the v
G. wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, Fool wrote:
On 26/06/2013 12:07 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I was blocking on the term "logician", that's a better choice. (Just had a
flashback to the day in grad school when I became a committed Bayesian,
maybe I was channeling).
Yeah man, you can get flashbacks
scshunt wrote:
I hereby initiate the Agoran Decision to select the Herald. The
candidates are scshunt and G., each with Proposed Salary 100.
The valid options are the candidates, the eligible voters are the
active players, and the vote collector is the IADoP. Voting is open
for one week.
Thou
scshunt wrote:
I propose the following rule:
At 12:00 July 1 2013 UTC+1200, Agora XX ends and the player with the
most points wins the game. In the event of a tie, the tied player who
most recently had more points than each other tied player wins.
FOR.
I propose amending the rule created by
G. wrote:
(+K) Judge a criminal (sentencing) case on time.
Don't like this one (incentives for sentences? though the 'black' is cute
theme). Maybe "deliver a timely appeals court judgement" as that seems
to be something that people flake on.
s/judgement/opinion/
Machiavelli wrote:
On Jun 23, 2013, at 12:50 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
GW [5] scshunt 2013-06-16 Postulated 2013-05-27 1 No
...
[5] Governmental Waste
CoE: Surely the holder of this office would be called the Governmental Wastrel.
Governmental Wastor.
So my new server got pressed into service earlier than I'd originally
planned (due to a DHCP foulup for which this was the easiest
workaround). Anyway, here are the new links:
http://zenith.homelinux.net/agora_acronyms.php
http://zenith.homelinux.net/awj.php
http://zenith.homelinux.net/agora_win
ehird wrote:
On 19 June 2013 20:12, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Anyone joining before #6 is an old hand I think, I mean, if you
suffered through the contract wars you are my brother... well, except
ehird...
Hah! My plan all along was to destroy the UNDEAD! And it worked!
That's what you fnord think
Michael wrote:
I register for the Agora XX game.
AOL!
scshunt wrote:
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
<<<
scshunt registered on or about Mon Apr 1 18:04:26 UTC 2013, and has been
continuously registered from that time to the time the first intent to
ratify this text was published.
Machiavelli became inactive on or
omd wrote:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Gratuitous: I generally left it implicit and got no complaints.
Do you have your own database set up or would you like me to continue
updating the existing one?
While a database of proposal text + results would be handy (mostly
omd wrote:
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 10:24 PM, omd wrote:
Voting results for Proposals 7453-70:
CoE: This should be correct but I forgot to explicitly describe
conditional votes, which may or may not be necessary. Admitted, they
were:
7458 woggle endorse IADoP (scshunt) -> PRESENT
7459 woggl
scshunt wrote:
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 11:36 PM, omd wrote:
7471 20 O Murphy Not that large
FOR
7472 20 O omd, etc. Spelling abuse capitalisation VLOP 2.0
FOR
NttPF
scshunt wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 1:57 AM, wrote:
It's worth noting that if G.'s vague CoE managed to adequately target all the
recent purported resolutions, none of them have self-ratified.
Ok, then CoE on the results on adopting 7436: Quorum was 5.
NttPF
Now that the ratifications
Yally wrote:
REMAND, per the new arguments.
Needed to specify 'with/without prejudice'. I think the other two
panelists already opined REMAND without prejudice, which would suffice
to make the panel act; will process it later.
scshunt wrote:
* If both provisions claim precedence over or defer to the
other, and the provisions have different powers, then the
higher-powered provision's claim of precedent or deferral
decides the conflict; otherwise
I recommend pulling this out o
G. wrote:
Coe: my May 20th votes for multiple decisions seems to have
been missed. -g.
They were after the normal end of the voting period, so only
effective for proposals that hadn't made quorum yet. Will sort
those out after the other stuff (I think scshunt and Roujo also
have some votes up
scshunt wrote:
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Ed Murphy mailto:emurph...@socal.rr.com>> wrote:
Voting results for Proposals 7426-34:
[This notice resolves the Agoran decisions of whether to adopt the
following proposals. For each decision, the options availa
omd wrote:
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Machiavelli voted AGAINST 7431:
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2013-May/031143.html
Admitted.
omd only re-voted on 7426-34, and only after eir VVLOP was increased
to 5 (not after it was
scshunt wrote:
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Ed Murphy mailto:emurph...@socal.rr.com>> wrote:
Causing a rule to become a Slave Golem would modify that rule, and
would not fit within the mechanism of Rule 105 (Power=3), so Rule 105
prevents it from occurring. FALSE.
I
omd wrote:
I strongly disagree with fellow panelist ais523's argument for FALSE, as I
expressed in my gratuitous arguments to the original case, but I too
would like additional clarity and hopefully a general precedent.
REMIT.
Ineffective due to not specifying with/without prejudice.
As long as you're rewriting headers, can you rewrite them to move Date:
to the bottom? Makes it easier to find.
G. wrote:
I'm not to keen on the concept as a whole, but if it were kept,
Maybe only restrict it to defined Crimes, rather that rule breaches
Generally?
That may still be annoying. In particular, Tardiness is a crime.
If we adopt Yaks, then we could bring back Infractions. These were
for
I checked the Assessor DB for proposals whose outcome was never
recorded. Most appeared to be uncontroversial batches where I
just missed updating the DB. Here are the rest (not counting
omd's trophy); anyone feel like researching these properly?
7314 - allegedly adopted Fri, 28 Sep 2012 14:0
Walker wrote:
Agreed. Maybe one month? I don't want it to be too short so the new
> player hasn't been inactivated yet. Also, I've just realised that the
> recruitor could just object to the recruit's deactivation.
How about making it contingent on the recruit having published at least
one mes
G. wrote:
worthwhile). This is also broken as written- by default, all players can
destroy their own dollars, but this would forbid those officers from
doing so (destroying their own).
Is there an advantage to this ability?
I like the idea of a proposed salary. Think the mechanics are a li
Machiavelli wrote:
== CFJ 3304 ==
Given the result of CFJ 3303, I think CFJ 3304 seems straightforward. First, Registrar
was vacant and Postulated. Next, scshunt made emself the holder of Registrar by
announcement. Then, Rule 2276 fl
scshunt wrote:
Proposal: Abhor the Vacuum (AI=2)
{{{
Destroy all promises without a non-existent author.
}}}
AGAINST. Did you mean "with a non-existent author"? May as well just
amend Rule 2337 (Promises) to state that such promises are destroyed.
Bucky wrote:
CfJ, inquiry: "scshunt satisfies the Victory Condition of Junta due to
Rule 2380"
Arguments: I can't figure out how scshunt changed the text of Rule 2380
outright with Agoran Consent, rather than causing some rule to amend
Rule 2380. (the lack of a reasonably up-to-date published r
ais523 wrote:
On Sun, 2013-04-14 at 00:33 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
Defendant Rule 2361 informed: 10 Apr 2013 05:42:52 GMT
CFJ: Rule 2361 has been informed of CFJ 3301.
Arguments: Unlike partnerships and golems and the like, which can
reasonably be informed of things via informing
scshunt wrote:
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 1:29 AM, Ed Murphy mailto:emurph...@socal.rr.com>> wrote:
7385 3.0 Ordinary scshunt New Beginnings
AGAINST
Care to provide an explanation?
Mostly tl;dr as soon as I saw "third-class". Having re-read it a
little m
Roujo wrote:
Thanks, guys, that makes sense. I change my vote on Proposal 7389 to
AGAINST, if that's possible.
It is, Rule 683 (d).
omd wrote:
7367 3.0 Ordinary scshunt Series Reboot
AGAINT
Come again?
Max Schutz wrote:
I only raised the question because every game i have discussed on my
podcast has phases and steps and things like that
Pretty much every nomic has some sort of phases and steps, but the
specific nature depends on the current rules:
* Suber's original initial ruleset has pl
omd wrote:
- You can retract/change votes.
And if you've already cast all your votes on a given proposal, then you
need to specify that you retract/change; simply casting more votes
doesn't work. [Rule 683, "first N"]
- The ratio of FOR to AGAINST has to be >= the adoption index for the pro
scshunt wrote:
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Tanner Swett mailto:swe...@mail.gvsu.edu>> wrote:
I resign Lexicographor.
—"What are you going to do without me?" Machiavelli
I assume Lexicographor. I initiate elections for all Assumed offices,
and nominate myself for Lexicographor.
I
omd wrote:
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Zefram wrote:
NUM FL AI SUBMITTER TITLE
5521 D1 2Ivan Hope Recordkeepors must recordkeep
PRESENT
lolwut?
G. wrote:
On Mon, 1 Apr 2013, Sean Hunt wrote:
It's been a good run, guys, but I think that it's time to find a new future for
Agora.
I register and submit the following proposal:
WHEREAS, the Rule "Richard Potato Boat" continues to exist and this makes me
nervous, I intend to declare a Gero
Walker wrote:
On 27 March 2013 08:03, Ed Murphy wrote:
Voting results for Proposals 7334 - 7336:
ID: 7335
AI: 1.0
Chamber: Ordinary
Author: Machiavelli
Title: Golem stripping
In the rule "Ribbons", replace the sentence "Ownership of Ribbons is
restricted to players."
G. wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013, Alex Smith wrote:
On Wed, 2013-02-27 at 13:12 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I intend to make the following document Contest w/o 3 objections:
Hmm. If this is a statement about the lack of votes and an attempt to
fix it, a simpler fix might be just making it easier
G. wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013, Ed Murphy wrote:
7346 1.5 Ordinary G. Disimposture
AGAINST
Do you like/are you finding the switch useful? I had the impression
it was forgotten about (or so low-maintenance that one might as well
change the default by proposal if needed). -G
omd wrote:
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
*7329 1.0 Antony The Card That Owned Itself
*7331 1.0 Antony Let's bookbind differently
*7332 1.0 Antony Lesser oops
CoE: I did not write any of these proposals.
Admitted, they were authored by
ehird wrote:
7337 1.0 Ordinary Machiavelli Give those back
PRESENT
7338 3.0 Ordinary ais523 cleanup
AGAINST
7339 3.0 Ordinary Machiavelli Lesser cleanup
AGAINST
I think this was mentioned already, but these are ineffective as you're
not an eligible voter (weren't register
Italy wrote:
For each of Proposals 7322 through 7339, I intend to deputise for the
Assessor to resolve the Agoran decision of whether to adopt it.
I expect to catch up on these within the next hour or two.
Now can we get some more judges, please? (Wes, say "I sit up" if you
do; Rule 1871 gives context.)
I wrote:
Only three players have voted on 7328-7332 so far. Note that the Speed
is Fast, so the initial voting period is just five days.
Players who need to get their act together on this: Arkady, G., Kolja,
Max Schutz, moonroof, Murphy, Phlogistique, Roujo, Wooble.
Oh, and Antony, who is e
woggle wrote:
Also, I hereby take from the Tree and cash (2012-09-04 omd).
Ineffective. It was transferred to ehird, and ehird never
transferred it to the Tree (at least not via a-b).
Italy wrote:
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I just noticed this in R478:
The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without
objection as long as:
(a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and
The problem being, if you're trying
== CFJ 3289 ==
Assigned to Italy: (as of this message)
Oops, missed overriding the RNG due to your disfavoring. Recuse
yourself so I can assign someone else, please?
Machiavelli wrote:
I intend, without objection, to ratify the above document.
No need, it's self-ratifying (Rule 2166).
I wrote:
Voting results for Proposals 7319 - 7321:
*7319 1.0 G. Trading Cards
*7320 1.0 scshunt Lexicon
*7321 2.0 Murphy Appeal of appeals
7319 7320 7321
Antony F+A F+A F+A
Italy2F2A2F
Pavitra 2F2F2F
Roujo
Machiavelli wrote:
Also, I intend to deputise for the Assessor to resolve the Agoran
Decisions as to whether adopt Proposals 7319–7321 (interpreting omd's
"FAP" votes as effective). (If I'm not mistaken, intent is necessary,
as the office is held.)
I also think they're effective (IINM e explai
On 12/11/2012 2:07 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
I intend, without objection, to deputise for the Promotor to
distribute undistributed proposals. They'll start with 7319, and
unless I've missed a message, they will be as follows:
*
Kolja wrote:
Wouldn't that mean that appeals are always judged by a panel biased
against the original judgement?
That's not what "favor/disfavor" mean; they mean "I do/don't want this
case assigned to me", regardless of how they would judge it if it was.
G. wrote:
Probably another good place to add a shorthand for "transfer a promise
from the tree and then cash it".
"Harvest".
Kolja wrote:
In addition, I was awarded a bachelor of Nomic history (also a long time
ago) but I'm afraid I couldn't even find the thesis anymore as I was
starting to rummage through the Agora history available on the
Internets... Does anyone know where these documents are archived?
Googling (
I wrote:
= Criminal Case 3281 =
[CotC: CFJs 3277-80]
CoE, accepted: Also CFJ 3275. Database updated.
Yally wrote:
I endorse FKA441344.
NttPF
Arkady wrote:
On 27 September 2012 02:53, Ed Murphy wrote:
Arkady became inactive on May 10 and I didn't find any later message
in which e became active, so e was not an eligible voter (even if eir
voting limit on 7310 was increased). For the record, e attempted to
vote F A F F F,
G. wrote:
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012, Ed Murphy wrote:
I create a promise:
Text: { For the decision to adopt Proposal 7314, I end the voting
period and resolve it as follows: }
Condition for cashing: { The cashing announcement is followed by an
accurate description of the outcome of the decision in
I wrote:
(I think it fails quorum regardless, with only ehird, G., Machiavelli
and scshunt having validly voted.)
Oops, missed omd's vote in the next message. Informally, looks like it
passes 9/1 by scshunt's interpretation of voting limits, or 6/1 by mine.
Machiavelli wrote:
"If a person CANNOT perform an action, and e reasonably ought to know
this fact, then e SHALL NOT announce that e performs it. In
particular, if a person does not hold an office and is not acting on
the office's behalf, then e SHALL NOT publish a document purporting to
be an o
ais523 wrote:
7293 1.7 Murphy Splitting hairs
MEH
7294 1.7 Murphy Splitting hairs the other way
MEH
I'm interpreting MEH as a synonym for PRESENT.
Pavitra wrote:
Given that the intent is so obvious, it's more reasonable to parse it
as "all first-class players [each individually] have at least 14".
There's still legitimate ambiguity regarding awarding props
simultaneously/serially: if the prop holdings are {5, 10, 15} before the
change, t
Pavitra wrote:
On 08/24/2012 01:32 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
Proposal: Fuel Up (AI=1)
{{{
Award sufficient props to each first-class player such that all
first-class players have at least 14 props.
}}}
I think that the intent is
{
For some constant K, award K props to each first class player; ch
G. wrote:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, ais523 wrote:
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 22:41 -0700, omd wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:12 PM, ais523 wrote:
Actually, thinking about this, I think it's impossible under the current
rules for anyone to inform a nomic (including Agora) of anything,
because the rul
FKA441344 wrote:
I submit a proposal with title {No Zero Length Reports}, adoption
index 3, and text
Create a new rule with title "No News Is Some News" and this text:
If the rules define a report as including a list, then while that
list is empty, that report includes the fact th
scshunt wrote:
Based on the arguments to CFJs 3121 & 3122, it appears that the
consensus among Agorans is that when an infinite rule-defined process
occurs, it does indeed occur infinitely, but instantaneously, leaving
the game in a single state afterwards. While the situation giving rise
to 312
Machiavelli wrote:
Anyway, if self-reference is not the point, then what is? It seems
like the only thing that could result in a turtle would be a single
clause within a rule that contradicts itself.
Which has happened. Here's a rundown from my Hall of Fame list:
* CFJ 3087 (self-contradic
1 - 100 of 3637 matches
Mail list logo
