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
[mailto:agora-discussion-boun...@agoranomic.org] On
Behalf Of Fool
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 9:10 PM
To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
Subject: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ assigned to Walker
On 26/06/2013 10:09 AM, games...@chuckcarroll.org wrote:
I invoke judgement on the following statement
-discussion-**boun...@agoranomic.orgagora-discussion-boun...@agoranomic.org]
On
Behalf Of Fool
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 9:10 PM
To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.**org agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
Subject: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ assigned to Walker
On 26/06/2013 10:09 AM, games
On Thursday, June 27, 2013, Fool wrote:
CFJ: a player who forfeits the game can still vote and/or transfer points.
In most games, after a player loses or forfeits, e is no longer considered
a player and can no longer make any type of move, and Rule 113 concurs with
this in contrasting
On 27 June 2013 02:10, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/06/2013 10:09 AM, games...@chuckcarroll.org wrote:
I invoke judgement on the following statement: The selection of a Judge
for this statement is a move whose legality cannot be determined with
finality.
By rule 331, I must
Goethe:
CFJ: Blob has forfeited.
331 makes me assign it randomly to me or one of the people who voted on
the last proposal, excluding the caller.
The last proposal was 347, on which 9 players voted. Goethe was one of
them. So was Blob. (hmm)
I'll go ahead and roll a virtual 8-sided die
(as the
assignment of a Judge was at the time of the previous CFJ).
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: agora-discussion [mailto:agora-discussion-boun...@agoranomic.org] On
Behalf Of Fool
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 9:10 PM
To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
Subject: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ assigned
On 27/06/2013 9:38 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
I call for judgement on the statement a player can change eir
vote.
My 8-sided virtual die comes up omd
You have 24 hours.
-Dan
Nothing in the rules support the notion that this is possible, or
allow for removing of votes. Instead, the rules
Rule 113, while implying that forfeiture usually is a choice, does not
appear to indicate that a person may not be forced to do it. The only
thing it seems to imply is that you cannot prevent a person from doing
it. Therefore, if a person is forced to forfeit, they have forfeited,
and I judge this
On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, Fool wrote:
Goethe's arguments:
Was thinking about this, it's interesting that this win attempt goes
along with our earlier discussion on legal versus mathematical. In a
mathematical sense, one could say that it was equally likely or
unlikely that omd sent the
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 from that sort of thing. Or so I've
heard, I
I invoke judgement on the following statement: The selection of a Judge
for this statement is a move whose legality cannot be determined with
finality.
Reasoning: Rule 331 reads, The Speaker shall choose Judges randomly from
the set of qualified players. The players qualified to judge a
On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, wrote:
I invoke judgement on the following statement: The selection of a Judge
for this statement is a move whose legality cannot be determined with
finality.
I think you need to wait until a purported selection actually occurs.
In any case, this might be enough
Yes, it had occurred to me that Rule 219 is unclear if the move under
consideration has to be an actual or at least attempted move, or if a
hypothetical move is sufficient. If the latter, well, here it is. If the
former, then I needed to get the ball rolling by making a CFJ anyway.
(Although I
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
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, omd wrote:
Although there are no appeals, I do strenuously object to this judgement.
The default assumption is the default because it is
usually accurate. Unless you believe that my brother and I are not in
control of the theagoranundead Gmail account, something
CFJ: a player who forfeits the game can still vote and/or transfer points.
(Forfeiture isn't strictly defined. Does it mean completely drop out,
points zeroed, cease to be defined as a player? Or just give up on a
chance to win but remain a player, retain voting, etc? Just seeking
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, omd wrote:
On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, wrote:
I invoke judgement on the following statement: The selection of a Judge
for this statement is a move whose legality cannot be determined with
finality.
I think you need to wait until a purported
On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, wrote:
As for any ordering of actions occuring in the same message, that's
tradition (possibly law?) in Agora itself, but I don't know whether Agoran
tradition carries over to Agora XX.
By the way, I'm not saying that my principle would necessarily hold
in Agora
You should have injected them with an emergency hit of information theory.
Instant clarity.
--
Steve Gardner
via mobile
On 27 Jun 2013 02:08, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, Fool wrote:
On 26/06/2013 12:07 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I was blocking on the
On 26/06/2013 10:09 AM, games...@chuckcarroll.org wrote:
I invoke judgement on the following statement: The selection of a Judge
for this statement is a move whose legality cannot be determined with
finality.
By rule 331, I must randomly select from myself or those who voted on
the last
Why not! I call for judgement on:
Roujo has cast valid votes on proposals by means of the message
quoted below.
On 26/06/2013 10:12 AM, Jonathan Rouillard wrote:
I also vote FOR all current proposals, except those who currently have
a majority of AGAINST votes - I vote AGAINST on those.
On 26/06/2013 3:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
CFJ: a player who forfeits the game can still vote and/or transfer points.
By 331, I must randomly select either myself or a voter on 341 (Goethe
was not one of them). My virtual 9-sided die comes up
omd
You have 24 hours.
-Dan
On 26/06/2013 3:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
CFJ: a player who forfeits the game can still vote and/or transfer points.
(Forfeiture isn't strictly defined. Does it mean completely drop out,
points zeroed, cease to be defined as a player? Or just give up on a
chance to win but remain a player,
On 26/06/2013 4:30 PM, omd wrote:
On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, wrote:
As for any ordering of actions occuring in the same message, that's
tradition (possibly law?) in Agora itself, but I don't know whether
Agoran
tradition carries over to Agora XX.
By the way, I'm not saying
I judge that this statement is FALSE.
R207 is silent on the question of whether Roujo can can legally cast votes
in the manner e attempted. By R217 I must therefore be guided by game
custom and spirit of the game. Game custom is not sufficiently established
to be of use here. The spirit of this
-discussion [mailto:agora-discussion-boun...@agoranomic.org] On
Behalf Of Fool
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 9:10 PM
To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
Subject: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ assigned to Walker
On 26/06/2013 10:09 AM, games...@chuckcarroll.org wrote:
I invoke judgement on the following statement
On 25/06/2013 4:34 PM, omd wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:27 PM, The UNDEADtheagoranund...@gmail.com wrote:
I do not register. I propose repealing rule 327.
Well... even though there are supposed to be a few days left, I don't
want to delay this further lest someone else beat me to it :)
On Tue, 25 Jun 2013, Fool wrote:
Furthermore I fail to see how even the mathematician's (thought it was
supposed to be logician's) version of the argument is sound. The reference to
the principle of indifference instead makes it sound like some sort of
Bayesian reasoning. But let me put my
scshunt raised 2 CFJs which I was to rule on. I ruled on one with my 6th
report, and procrastinated on this one:
I invoke judgement on whether Rule 304 had the power to repeal itself
without that rule change being voted on. I think that all rule changes
must be voted on and cannot occur
I raised a CFJ which FSX was to rule on:
I call for judgement on the validity of proposal 322. See rule 105. 322
contains a conditional:
322 (Walker):
- If the Rule initially numbered 106 is mutable, amend Rule 210 to
read ...
This isn't like the rule formerly numbered 211 which isn't a
I invoke Judgement on the following statement:
The proposals numbered 312, 313, 318, 319, and 320 are not proposed rule
changes, and will have no effect if adopted, regardless of the adoption of
other currently existing proposals.
Reasoning: they propose to amend (currently) immutable
On 22/06/2013 9:09 AM, Chuck Carroll wrote:
I invoke Judgement on the following statement:
The “proposals” numbered 312, 313, 318, 319, and 320 are not proposed
rule changes, and will have no effect if adopted, regardless of the
adoption of other currently existing proposals.
Reasoning: they
33 matches
Mail list logo
