Also, going by a "formal" approach: "Agora" dies each time the gamestate
takes a path that I disagree with. : D
jk, I believe that Agora is just a social activity and that we're dishonest
with ourselves and others often enough. along having enough disagreements
by having different point of views o
The core issue is imo what you define Agora to be. The social activity or
the "formal" space we generate together?
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 2:11 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
> > On Sep 13, 2017, at 2:19 AM, Aris Merchant gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Agora would stop existing. It would therfore have n
On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> >
> >> On Sep 13, 2017, at 2:19 AM, Aris Merchant
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Agora would stop existing. It would therfore have no state. Arguably
> >> though, if we made a meta-descision to recreate
On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
>> On Sep 13, 2017, at 2:19 AM, Aris Merchant
>> wrote:
>>
>> Agora would stop existing. It would therfore have no state. Arguably
>> though, if we made a meta-descision to recreate it, it would start
>> existing again. The Paradox of Self-
> On Sep 13, 2017, at 2:19 AM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> Agora would stop existing. It would therfore have no state. Arguably
> though, if we made a meta-descision to recreate it, it would start
> existing again. The Paradox of Self-Amendment has some stuff on this.
Would it, though? The pres
Rule changes have to be sequential. Ossification aside, you need both
Instrument definitions and some kind of combination of r105/106 or the
Proposal stops functioning mid-way. I'm not sure there's a repeal order that
wouldn't leave at least one rule as a broken remnant.
(Assuming there was a
We can also determine that Agora platonically ended, and recreate the
game the same way we did it in the first place, with whatever ruleset
and gamestate we feel like.
-Aris
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:25 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
> I guess if that happened we could uh... start calling CFJs, pretending
It would have to be two seperate proposals. Rule 1698 looks at the
"net effect" of a proposal, and so would see that the proposal would
stop Agora existing and block it from having any effect at all.
-Aris
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:22 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
>> On Sep 13, 2017, at 2:21 AM, V
I guess if that happened we could uh... start calling CFJs, pretending
that the mechanism still existed. And then establish common law rules
that way (eg we could have proposal voting as a matter of common law
and then bring back the rules)
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
Technically, it would "cause Agora to cease to exist." So yes.
-Aris
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:21 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
> any proposal doing that would get failed bc of ossifying agora though right?
>
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>> Agora would stop existing. It would
> On Sep 13, 2017, at 2:21 AM, VJ Rada wrote:
>
> any proposal doing that would get failed bc of ossifying agora though right?
That proposal could repeal that rule.
-o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
any proposal doing that would get failed bc of ossifying agora though right?
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> Agora would stop existing. It would therfore have no state. Arguably
> though, if we made a meta-descision to recreate it, it would start
> existing again. The Para
Agora would stop existing. It would therfore have no state. Arguably
though, if we made a meta-descision to recreate it, it would start
existing again. The Paradox of Self-Amendment has some stuff on this.
-Aris
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> As a thought experiment (o
As a thought experiment (only), what is the state of Agora if we repeal every
rule?
-o
> On Sep 13, 2017, at 1:30 AM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> Ahh! Don't do that. All rules are instruments.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:55 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> Proto:
>>
>> Title: Spring C
Ahh! Don't do that. All rules are instruments.
-Aris
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:55 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Proto:
>
> Title: Spring Cleaning
>
> Content: Remove all Historic Instruments [replace that with a proper
> definition for cleanup] that are older than 1 year old.
>
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017
Proto:
Title: Spring Cleaning
Content: Remove all Historic Instruments [replace that with a proper
definition for cleanup] that are older than 1 year old.
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 5:39 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
> > On Sep 12, 2017, at 1:26 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > This whole con
> On Sep 12, 2017, at 1:26 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> This whole conversation rung a memory bell for me, something Old (12+ years
> old) that might be
> still in effect!
>
> There was a Proposal, that read something like the following:
>
> Be it Hereby Proclaimed that from this moment
> On Sep 12, 2017, at 12:51 PM, Quazie wrote:
>
> So if I make a private agreement with someone, it's officially unreasonable
> to ding them for any failures to fulfill unless we expose the contract
> publicly
This is consistent with real-world contract law, wherein the court must be
privy t
> On Sep 12, 2017, at 11:59 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> Well that's one way to forbid punishing anyone for lies or bad intent, if
> nothing
> else.
>
> This is pretty much already what we play by though, in that it can be argued
> "if it's not in the PF, it's beyond the reasonable effort
Now i'm sad no one made any odd actions on the last leap sexond
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 17:21 grok (caleb vines)
wrote:
> We could regulate time with ticks or something if we really wanted to
> waste weeks slash months slash years drafting the legislature.
>
> And by we I mean y'all, no way in he
We could regulate time with ticks or something if we really wanted to waste
weeks slash months slash years drafting the legislature.
And by we I mean y'all, no way in hell I'm doing that.
-grok
On Sep 12, 2017 7:11 PM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com
Very Very Important part of the game. (I am being serious.)
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Sep 12, 2017, at 8:10 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> Time passing.
>
> Gaelan
>
> On Sep 12, 2017, at 1:25 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
>> What intended inter
Time passing.
Gaelan
> On Sep 12, 2017, at 1:25 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> What intended interaction with IRL do we have aside from being a person to be
> a player and Pledges possibly summoning it?
>
>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>>
>> Check out this CFJ:
>>
What intended interaction with IRL do we have aside from being a person to
be a player and Pledges possibly summoning it?
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Check out this CFJ:
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3411
>
> result: R2125 may need to hav
Check out this CFJ:
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3411
result: R2125 may need to have better handshakes with external reality
to handle this sort of thing.
On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
> How does 869 interact with determining the gamestate exclusively
I’d been wondering if it was possible to create gamestate-impacting objects
that were not recorded anywhere. I guess know I know.
Gaelan
> On Sep 12, 2017, at 10:26 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> This whole conversation rung a memory bell for me, something Old (12+ years
> old) that might
How does 869 interact with determining the gamestate exclusively
through public fora anyways? The public fora doesn't have record of
whether each registered player is a discrete organism capable of
freely originating and communicating independent thoughts and ideas,
it just assumes that players are
This whole conversation rung a memory bell for me, something Old (12+ years
old) that might be
still in effect!
There was a Proposal, that read something like the following:
Be it Hereby Proclaimed that from this moment forward, anyone who causes
gamestate
changes without creating a pu
Did we sort of test that with the recent pledge-in-a-hash?
On possibility is that we finally define "gamestate" as the state calculated
from the sum of all restricted actions (and only restricted actions).
One possibility for pledges is that the only way Agora recognizes the existence,
and thus
Public messages. You can send a message to all players separately and have it
count as public, presumably as a defense against fora going down suddenly.
Gaelan
> On Sep 12, 2017, at 8:47 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> The Telepathy problem seems like a puzzle to crack, I'd like to keep on
> try
So if I make a private agreement with someone, it's officially unreasonable
to ding them for any failures to fulfill unless we expose the contract
publicly
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 09:00 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Well that's one way to forbid punishing anyone for lies or bad intent, if
> nothing
>
Well that's one way to forbid punishing anyone for lies or bad intent, if
nothing
else.
This is pretty much already what we play by though, in that it can be argued
"if it's not in the PF, it's beyond the reasonable effort of an officer or a
judge to figure it out" so it's thrown out as not bei
The Telepathy problem seems like a puzzle to crack, I'd like to keep on
trying:
Proto:
Title: No Telepathy v2
AI: ?
Content: Add to rule (something):
"The gamestate is at all times calculable from information posted at the
public fora."
33 matches
Mail list logo
