On 12 October 2013 03:17, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If
> a player's score has not been previously changed by the Rules, or
> cannot be determined by reasonable effort, it is 0.
UNDECIDABLE; we have determined that eir score is not determinable by
reasonable effort (by the reasonable effort o
On 8 August 2013 00:29, comex wrote:
> The quoted paragraph is intended to be explicitly mostly silent on the
> matter, only using emoji as an example. Em⭕️ji is annoying, but so is
> z̸̨̜͈̦̹̜͕̥͈̱̟̙̰͍͈̻̠̩̝͈͝a̵̱̳̣̗̳̣͍̭̣̝̲̠͚̤̞͢͠ͅl̨̨̢̙̫̣̖̭̖͍̦̞̠̹͞g̢̛̻͇̜̙̟̗̲͇̬̫͘̕o͔͇̺͎͍̞̦͖̥͔̝̕͢͟ͅ,
> ｆｕｌｌｗｉｄｔｈ, ├box dra
On 7 August 2013 22:57, omd wrote:
> (The precise definition of "text" is generally left to the
> Registrar's discretion, but should be conservative; no emoji.)
Please just allow Unicode strings -- or better, stay silent on the
matter. Defining "text" is a fool's errand, and explicitl
On 6 August 2013 04:14, omd wrote:
> A person has the right to register and to
> remain a player except where forbidden due to eir own
> prior actions.
Needs handling for inactivity?
On 6 August 2013 02:25, omd wrote:
> Was it really necessary to post this out a week - 3 hours after
> initiation, requiring a revote?
This is Fool's nomic now -- we just play it.
Oh, wait; no we don't.
On 6 August 2013 01:25, Fool wrote:
> One more CoE: As we see, people appeal judgements out of spite, and I expect
> they pass judgements out of spite as well. In fact, in a discussion some
> time ago it was already mentioned that this was expected in dictatorship
> cases. I think even it was you
On 4 August 2013 18:19, omd wrote:
> In theory, Rule 217 should make the consensus platonically correct unless it
> blatantly contradicts the text. In practice, it might not actually stand up
> for 20 years, never mind the time before that wording existed and the
> likelihood of unambiguous pre-r
On 4 August 2013 09:43, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I'm not going to tell you that you *can't* have the fun of reconstructing
> your own personal "platonic" state (to each eir own), but if it bogs us
> down and distracts us from actually playing based on our own current
> (non-platonic) consensus of the
On 4 August 2013 05:01, Craig Daniel wrote:
> Man, I've tried that with B. Server discontinuities make it more
> difficult than it's likely to be for Agora, to the point where as far
> as I can tell the gamestate is that we're in a maybe-fixable emergency
> but don't know which emergency procedure
On 4 August 2013 02:54, wrote:
> You may argue that after this long, there is probably *some* other reason why
> the platonic gamestate is wrong, and a few have been proposed over the years.
> But we try our best.
If sufficient mail archives were obtained, I for one would find it an
interesti
On 4 August 2013 00:22, Fool wrote:
> This danger doesn't even sound plausible to me. Everyone's confused and goes
> home, and never comes back? I doubt it.
More likely is that everyone gets sick of you acquiring and
maintaining your dictatorship in ways that go quite strongly against
tradition i
On 2 August 2013 13:46, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> FOR
NtttPF (and please vote as "FOR*1" for unambiguity).
On 2 August 2013 11:26, Fool wrote:
> Duhhh of course. I'll do it right away without looking closely. I mean it
> DOES say EMEREGENCY... 8*b 8*b 8*b
*sigh*
On 2 August 2013 11:38, Fool wrote:
> It's common enough to hear that classical logic is "about truth" while
> intuitionistic is "about provability" or something like that, but I don't
> buy it.
Classic logic is about irrefutability.
This whole thing strikes me as being in incredibly poor form and I
disapprove of it.
(People who were around to see me years ago can stop laughing now.)
On 23 July 2013 15:12, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> Good luck on recording THAT in the reports.
It should be OK; it can be reported as "G +/- n" for some n, and it
should be easy to tell when it's greater than anyone else's number of
Yaks (always). Of course it would be interesting to do trades of a
On 4 July 2013 02:06, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> Is the joke that I've been a Player before y'all and still am not an Elder?
> (Or even registered.)
The joke is that I needed a subject line and am tired. But you should
totally register!
On 3 July 2013 22:11, Alex Smith wrote:
> I think ehird's suggestion works, though; you could promise "I perform
> the specified action with the sha-1 hash ". For
> bonus points, you could even transfer it to the Tree, leaving it unclear
> who you'd made the promise to.
I think encryption where y
You could probably use encryption to get all of it.
On 29 June 2013 13:37, Fool wrote:
> Alex Hunt
what
I also spend as many points as I can to purchase extra votes against
364. And cast those votes.
Fancy seeing you here. Hi!
I vote FOR 363 and do not vote on 364.
On 26 June 2013 13:03, Fool wrote:
>
> [Missed one...]
>
> Here I'll just number and repeat the four new proposals that were made.
> You can vote by replying to this message, privately if you like.
> I'll send out a full report shortly.
>
> -Dan
>
> 344 (Yally):
>>
>> Amend Rule 326 to read:
>>
>>
It's been a bit too successful if you ask me!
Accordingly, I vote FOR all current proposals.
I propose that all rules be transmuted to mutable.
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!
On 19 June 2013 01:28, Fool wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> A report in about 11h. Here I'll only number and repeat the proposals made
> so far, so that you can vote by just replying to this message. You can vote
> privately, as omd reminds you.
>
> Voting on these four closes in 24h.
>
> -Dan
>
> 301 (Ch
I am tired, and I object to my being made inactive, and I vote PRESENT
on everything I can, and I register for Agora XX, and the first two
actions I do only in Agora, whilst the latter I do only in Agora XX,
my observation of tiredness not being counted as an action, have a
nice day.
On 11 June 2013 20:13, Tanner Swett wrote:
> It could be argued that if the rules contained a self-contradictory
> statement of this nature, then the entire ruleset would be effectively
> meaningless and unusable, because, by the principle of explosion, all
> statements would be both true and fals
On 31 May 2013 18:08, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 0. Toy Nomic is a Nomic with the following rules. An
> instance of Toy Nomic began on the Agora Business mailing
> lists on 31-May-13.
ISIDTID!
On 29 May 2013 17:47, John Smith wrote:
> Also, for good measure, I CfJ (inquiry barring omd) on "". This message
> successfully initiated a criminal CfJ.
This seems like a malformed CFJ plus a possible lie.
On 20 May 2013 22:32, omd wrote:
> It might make an interesting CFJ whether the Miller-Rabin test is thus
> sufficient
I think we decide CFJs based on much weaker things.
On 6 May 2013 03:35, Henri Bouchard wrote:
> What is an entity?
Yes.
On 3 May 2013 04:58, omd wrote:
> - Date hack disabled until I can figure out what to do about the
> duplicate messages.
They do not bother me, FWIW. Especially as they arrive quickly.
On 2 May 2013 18:03, omd wrote:
> The password is vaguely useful because you can use it to configure
> your subscription preferences.
Well, there's no reason these settings couldn't just be confirmed (as
with subscription) or even operated entirely from email (cf.
http://www.jwz.org/doc/mailman.h
On 2 May 2013 17:58, omd wrote:
> The archives include the raw mbox, and I don't really want to
> obfuscate that, because then the obfuscated version will end up
> getting backed up and published someday ;p
By the way you should switch to mailing list software that doesn't
tell me about my autoge
On 2 May 2013 18:18, omd wrote:
> Not everyone has Gmail's spam filtering!
Surely even mailman can weakly obfuscate addresses in the archives.
On 2 May 2013 05:50, omd wrote:
> Among other possible changes, I'd like to make a nice URL that leads
> to the list archive with only HTTP authentication rather than
> mailman's cookie crap, for easier wgetting, and put the website on
> GitHub to preserve history.
I don't see why the archives ne
On 29 April 2013 19:25, omd wrote:
> Rules regarding past events and game values pertain to the
> actual platonic state of the game in the past, not to an archive
> implicitly stored in the gamestate.
I would prefer a less nomic theory, more "in universe" way of phrasing
this if
On 29 April 2013 17:11, Tanner Swett wrote:
> djanatyn (a first-class person who has never been a player before, and
> who has authorized me to act on his behalf for approximately the next
> six month or until he declares otherwise) registers.
tell him I said to press s
So how long do we wait for them to get comfortable with us before we
invade again?
On 11 April 2013 18:04, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I don't understand that either. For years it was the most strongly
> defended-against thing out there. Now people say, "eh, maybe it will
> be somehow interesting". I don't get that particularly.
I think dictatorship scams would be more interesting
On 11 April 2013 00:01, Sean Hunt wrote:
> No more strange than a modern Westminster democracy with a separate
> Supreme Court.
As I said, Agora is a strange place.
On 10 April 2013 22:55, Wes Contreras wrote:
> Intent is irrelevant. The Rules guide play as written, not as intended.
The courts can take intent into account. Agora is a strange place.
Proto-proto-proposal-sketch the first: Define almost everything
(rules, currency, messages, fora...) as a person and see what goes
boom. Preferably allow them to become players in some way. Replace
Golems with this or something.
Proto-proto-proposal-sketch the second: Give me back Gmail's old
comp
I suggest we implement the form that was found in your dream: for
$currency, a player can suspend some part of a rule (for the whole
game or only as it relates to their actions?) for a while. It sounds
more interesting than a communal thing, and lord knows we need some
help getting an economy going
I would like to throw in my support for the continued existence of
second-class players. I'd rather have partnerships back, in fact.
On 3 April 2013 03:25, Wes Contreras wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:20 PM, wrote:
>>
>> E just submitted a proposal, which is one such action; there are others
On 12 March 2013 03:20, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Admitted, it was 11 Mar 13. (Obviously I missed editing that part
> before sending it out.)
I just didn't want to consider the cosmological implications of
ratifying that statement.
On 25 February 2013 19:10, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to flip the Recognition of
> B Nomic to Abandoned.
Having recently come out of a slump, B is just now getting moving
again. It has always and will always have recently come out of a
slump. It will always be just now g
On 24 January 2013 23:25, woggle wrote:
> Having received no objections, I hereby set the Speed to Slow.
Not so fast!
Hello!
On 5 November 2012 03:43, Max Schutz wrote:
> I will vote OMD
You'll have to sent your email to the agora-business list (not
agora-discussion) for that.
On 11 October 2012 21:31, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> d. Per-problem, test cases may have a practical cycle limit or
> right-tape limit (to prevent someone claiming "hey, it would work if
> you let it run 1e15 cycles!" when it's pretty clear it's not going
> to do what's intended).
Since you can write
On 11 October 2012 18:28, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> HA! I'd already copypastad it to a safe location under my control which I'll
> use/publish for the official rules :P
>
> But sure, it's http://esolangs.org/w/index.php?title=Brainfuck&oldid=32694
To resolve the "Implementation issues" section of tha
On 11 October 2012 14:30, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> How would BF golf differ from BF joust, which you ran some years back?
Golf is implementing a specified program in as few bytes as possible.
For instance, implementing a word-counting program in brainfuck, where
the winner is the shortest progra
On 11 October 2012 09:50, Arkady English wrote:
> Pardon my ignorance, but what is this? Or is it playing code golf in
> an obscure language, because I'm up for that!
http://esolangs.org/wiki/Brainfuck
Relatedly: G., did you know that your Brainfuck Joust evolved into a
game which is still playe
On 27 September 2012 05:13, Sean Hunt wrote:
> However, by sheer coincidence, Rule 2364 allowed omd to double eir voting
> limit---that is, increase it by 2---on the proposal in question for a single
> fee. I believe the general precedent is that if a player announces an
> incorrect cost, they pay
On 27 August 2012 09:32, Sean Christopher Sherwood Hunt
wrote:
> This is a test email; please ignore.
Don't tell me what to do.
CFJ: That was a test email; please ignore.
Arguments:
On 11 July 2012 06:19, omd wrote:
> didn't we just have a CFJ about this? :p
No, since the full-width Latin characters are at least intended to
convey the same information as their normal-width counterparts, rather
than simply visually resembling them.
On 11 July 2012 01:19, Noé Rubinstein wrote:
> How the hell would this not be trivially TRUE by rule 754/1?
Those are full-width characters; they are certainly not the usual
means we would expect actions to be presented in, but more
importantly, several players may be unable to view the text corr
On 7 July 2012 05:43, Sean Hunt wrote:
> CoE: No you do not. The hypothetical is arising out of the case itself.
The inevitable CFJ I hope is judged UNDECIDABLE.
On 6 July 2012 15:14, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Mind you, nothing prevents Ozymandias (or anyone else) from CFJing on
> the same statement - though, if one instance has already been judged
> UNDECIDABLE, then further instances might be judged "IRRELEVANT, points
> out nothing new".
Wait, we got rid of t
On 6 July 2012 15:00, Ed Murphy wrote:
> CFJ: It would be ILLEGAL for a player to publish a message whose body
> consisted solely of the text "I intend, without objection, to ratify
> the statement of CFJ 3240.".
Oh, sneaky... Very nice.
On 5 July 2012 05:19, Ed Murphy wrote:
> CFJ: omd initiated a CFJ in the above-quoted message.
Arguments: If this is judged TRUE, I will deregister.
On 29 June 2012 20:00, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> Ah, but my question as a non-player is whether you are the commander of the
> UNDEAD.
Of course I'm not. As confirmed by G., omd is the new commander of the UNDEAD.
On 29 June 2012 14:12, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> I'm disappointed that there was no action on my request, which could have
> helped decide this CFJ.
The commander of the UNDEAD would never betray his people.
On 28 June 2012 17:07, Ozymandias Haynes wrote:
> I don't think this CFJ alone would constitute a win, but I could
> submit a distinct claim of victory and in the case of a TRUE or FALSE
> judgment here, cite the CFJ as evidence. No?
It is easy to see that this would not work by removing the
(in
Also, TRUE is an incorrect judgement, because you have not won the
game, regardless of what the judgement says. If I CFJ'd "I have won
the game in 2012." and it was judged TRUE, that would be an incorrect
judgement; judgements can interpret the rules, but not override them.
Note that a judgement of UNDECIDABLE will not allow you to win by
paradox, as a turtle's paradox cannot arise from the case itself, per
rule 2358.
On 25 June 2012 21:24, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Arguments: In context, I consider "here I go" a reasonably unambiguous
> equivalent of "I become a player".
Arguments: In my opinion, this is really stretching our leniency with
registration requests to breaking point, especially since its author
was cle
On 24 June 2012 23:26, FKA441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I intend to, With Notice, initiate a criminal case: omd violated Rule
> 2143 by failing to distribute by the end of Sun. 24 June proposals in
> the proposal pool that were in there at the beginning of Mon. 18 June.
Do we really need cons
On 23 June 2012 09:54, Eric Stucky wrote:
> As long as you're explaining how things work, I still don't understand
> ratification. Could you do some magic on the ruleset and make that make sense
> to me?
Ratification is when we take a document and say "this is true", and it
becomes true, regard
On 21 June 2012 22:21, Henri Bouchard wrote:
> Do I need to know all the rules to play?
Hell, I've been playing for four years and I still don't know *any* of them.
On 21 June 2012 20:29, Tanner Swett wrote:
> I support G.'s move to motion to reconsider CFJ 3214.
I support.
I think this would just result in fewer PRESENT votes and more no-votes.
On 15 June 2012 06:05, Pavitra wrote:
> Pretty sure this would make it ILLEGAL for anyone else to write poetry,
> due to R2125(d).
FOR
On 10 June 2012 00:04, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Because the ruleset does not self-ratify; nor can it be ratified
> without objection. It is periodically ratified by proposal.
Good thing we have that safeguard against errant Rulekeepors, or we
might be in trouble!
On 9 June 2012 06:06, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> So, I just realized the rules never took notice of proposal 6671, adopted on
> March 22, 2010 and affecting Rule 1367. This also means that parts of
> proposal 6717 were ineffective.
Wait, why doesn't ratification take care of this?
On 9 June 2012 14:35, Ed Murphy wrote:
> See: the entire history of B Nomic /ever/. (I'm only half-joking.)
Half? Where's the half-joke?
Since B Nomic spent almost its entire history stuck in the first or
second era (I forget which), and they only realised it after about
five more of them, I'd
On 9 June 2012 05:26, Pavitra wrote:
> I sent this message to a-d.
I didn't.
On 9 June 2012 01:36, omd wrote:
> C'mon, at least specify 14. Otherwise we'll never get up to 50 :)
I taunt the police, specifying 14.
I taunt the police, specifying 14.
I taunt the police, specifying 14.
I taunt the police, specifying 14.
I deregister.
Arguments: I sent this message to a-d.
On 4 June 2012 06:27, ais523 wrote:
> I think the real reason to just tweak the AI rather than autofailing the
> proposal is that less can go wrong.
Add an "unpassable" switch to a proposal that causes automatic failure
at vote-counting time or something, then. But personally, I'd prefer
it if an
On 4 June 2012 06:20, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I'm not sure where you *ever* picked up that impression.
It's nice to pretend.
On 2 June 2012 21:48, Elliott Hird wrote:
> You might as well just let the Elders fail a proposal (which seems a bit iffy
> to me).
To expand on this: We're meant to be something approximating
democracy. If a majority of players want us to surrender to the
Aerican Empire, then a
On 2 June 2012 17:45, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Lest ehird start routinely using AI = 3141592653.5 just because e can
dammit
On 2 June 2012 16:38, FKA441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote:
> They may already have seen
> this and begun to prepare a pre-emptive strike. This proposal should
> therefore be adopted as a matter of urgency.
Yawn. I've said the same thing before, and was basically joking. The
anti-invasion stuff seem
They're really boring. Can't we just invade?
I'd probably vote if I got rubles from it. Maybe.
Maybe fewer proposals would fail quorum if we were paid to vote on them.
On 23 May 2012 13:35, Ed Murphy wrote:
> It's 2012 and we're still having this argument? Trim quoted material,
> interleave replies, and look for a quote-collapse tool. (I only
> top-post in work e-mails, where it's ubiquitous and not worth fighting.)
I would wholeheartedly second this email, b
On 18 May 2012 14:34, Schrodinger's Cat wrote:
> How do I register it as a secondary posting account?
Announcing that you also use this email to a public forum (from your
main address) should suffice.
On 13 May 2012 18:39, FKA441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Votes Assessor
> #
>
> Totals Assessor
>
These column headings are confusing. May I suggest "Voter"/"Candidate"
and "Candidate"/"Votes"?
On 10 April 2012 19:02, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> Gratuitous from a non-current Player: The message seems accurate to
> me. IMO the act of registration was intentional and proper, the
> decision to register for Agora may prove to be a Bad Idea (tm).
Gratuitous: I suggest a penalty of EXILE/10 y
On 10 April 2012 17:44, Ed Murphy wrote:
> you know who you are
:'(
On 9 April 2012 16:54, ais523 wrote:
> That invasion didn't even hit an AI of 1.
Exactly. Such a scam is nearly impossible to pull on any nomic that
has a day or two's warning.
On 9 April 2012 15:50, ais523 wrote:
> (Alternatively, /sufficiently/ many sockpuppets will be able to beat out
> an AI of 8, unless countered by still more sockpuppets.)
See: BlogNomic, October 2011. [1]
[1] http://blognomic.com/archive/cfj_attn_cotc/
IIRC this was originally part of anti-invasion stuff. I'd be happy to see it go.
On 9 April 2012 04:46, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I'm interpreting this as AGAINST (i.e. as an evaluation of the
> hypothetical statement "this proposal should be adopted"). As it's
> early in the voting period, omd has plenty of time to clarify if
> this is not what e intended.
I typo'd my first FOR vo
On 2 April 2012 20:58, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Actually, er, unless I'm missing it, there's currently no way of
> making a proposal democratic, unless it's specified as democratic
> upon submission. So Agora's fairly safe from Democracy right now.
Yes, but it's probably a bad idea to add in voting
1 - 100 of 1799 matches
Mail list logo
