Missing obvious kind of extreme case:
{
Power 3: Players can Declare Quanging by announcement, unless another rule
contains the word “Walruses”.
Power 1: Walruses are a currency tracked by the Zoologist. [...]
}
On Sun, 24 Feb 2019, Gaelan Steele wrote:
Some thought experiments:
{
Power
I mean, in practice that just means that voting against a proposal would be
something you do very not-lightly. We’d end up with a lot of negotiation and
politicking. In practice, splits would be fairly rare.
Gaelan
> On Feb 24, 2019, at 3:20 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> This reminds me of a
Some thought experiments:
{
Power 3: Players can Declare Quanging by announcement, unless another rule
contains the text “Players can’t Declare Quanging.”
Power 1: Players can’t Declare Quanging.
}
{
Power 3: Players can Declare Quanging by announcement, unless another rule
describes a
On Sun, 24 Feb 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Please look at the Caller's "two assumptions" arguments in CFJ 1104, I was
on the fence when this conversation started, but reading those arguments is
what convinced me: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1104
Those arguments explicitly
Murphy's thread reply, meant to go to discussion I think.
Forwarded Message
Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 12:02:17 -0800
From: Edward Murphy
To: Kerim Aydin
G. wrote:
On 2/24/2019 10:11 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
> The ultimate po
This reminds me of a concept I ran across while reading an essay about
Nomic one time called Fork World, where the guiding principle of play is
"no coercion". In Fork World, the group of players who vote against each
rule change and the group of players who vote for are sent to their own,
> On Feb 24, 2019, at 1:40 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> There's an entirely-independent protection worth considering, in R2140 -
> even if a higher-powered rule defers to a lower powered-one, if the lower-
> powered one then makes use of that deference to "set or modify a substantive
> aspect"
On 2/24/2019 10:11 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
> The ultimate point is that the CFJ doesn’t consider the
differencesbetween > the situation where ONE rule claims priority/deference
to the other and
> the other is silent, versus when BOTH rules give INCONSISTENT
> priority/deference answers, versus
> On Feb 24, 2019, at 1:16 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> What's missing from this analysis, in my view, is that it's not purely A>B,
> it's actually "A>B about fact P". So if two rules say different things
> about P, the two rules can wholly agree, via an explicit
> precedence/deference
> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:51 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> Can you give me any example of a pair where R1030 would block deference from
>> a high power to a low power from working? The problem I'm having is that
>> your reading
On 2/24/2019 9:47 AM, D. Margaux wrote:>
> The mirror image assumption is partly wrong, in my opinion, and I don't
> think that CFJ adequately considers why.
>
> For rules A and B, let:
>
> “A > B” mean A claims precedence to B;
> “A < B” mean that A defers to B; and
> “A = B” mean that A is
> On Feb 24, 2019, at 12:47 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
>
> The mirror image assumption is partly wrong, in my opinion, and I don't think
> that CFJ adequately considers why.
>
> For rules A and B, let:
>
> “A > B” mean A claims precedence to B;
> “A < B” mean that A defers to B; and
> “A =
The mirror image assumption is partly wrong, in my opinion, and I don't think
that CFJ adequately considers why.
For rules A and B, let:
“A > B” mean A claims precedence to B;
“A < B” mean that A defers to B; and
“A = B” mean that A is silent about its deference or priority relationship to
On 2/24/2019 8:51 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
>> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> Can you give me any example of a pair where R1030 would block deference
>> from a high power to a low power from working? The problem I'm having is
>> that your reading prevents R1030 from
> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Can you give me any example of a pair where R1030 would block deference from
> a high power to a low power from working? The problem I'm having is that
> your reading prevents R1030 from working at all by defining R1030
> "deference" as
Can you give me any example of a pair where R1030 would block deference from
a high power to a low power from working? The problem I'm having is that
your reading prevents R1030 from working at all by defining R1030
"deference" as something that never happens.
On 2/24/2019 5:54 AM, D. Margaux
> On Feb 23, 2019, at 9:06 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>> On 2/22/2019 8:06 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>> I think the "Except as prohibited by other rules" is a condition, and
>> _possibly_ also a deference (it depends on exactly what deference means).
>
> I don't think there should be a
On 2/22/2019 8:06 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
I think the "Except as prohibited by other rules" is a condition, and
_possibly_ also a deference (it depends on exactly what deference means).
I don't think there should be a substantive difference in interpretation
between "Except as prohibited
On Thu, 21 Feb 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 12:57 AM Gaelan Steele wrote:
The proposed rule is a prohibition on a certain type of change.
Because 106 says “except as prohibited by other rules”, it defers to
this rule.
Deference clauses only work between rules of the
On Fri, 2019-02-22 at 10:45 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 10:22 AM D. Margaux
> wrote:
> > > On Feb 22, 2019, at 12:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > Every so often, someone decides "we're not really playing Agora
> > > anymore" because (in their perception) we improperly
> That doesn’t mean pure logic is unimportant; but it does mean that logic
“works” only to the extent it can persuade the relevant legal actors.
I agree with that entirely. Perspectivism and shit.
It's why we have CFJs and stuff, people disagree all the time.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 7:50 PM D.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 10:22 AM D. Margaux wrote:
> > On Feb 22, 2019, at 12:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Every so often, someone decides "we're not really playing Agora
> > anymore" because (in their perception) we improperly papered over some
> > platonic truth that made everything freeze.
>
> On Feb 22, 2019, at 1:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Given that, unlike countries, Agora is an
> entirely voluntary organization, my personal worry about Agora is not
> a "full ossification that almost everyone agrees happened" nor "1 or 2
> people saying we were playing wrong" but a
> On Feb 22, 2019, at 12:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Every so often, someone decides "we're not really playing Agora
> anymore" because (in their perception) we improperly papered over some
> platonic truth that made everything freeze.
That point of view makes me think of the “sovereign
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 6:34 AM Cuddle Beam wrote:
> >> (It's instructive to note what happened to B Nomic; it was also rather
> >> long-running in terms of gameplay, but when the players noticed that it
> >> had been ossified for years, it just died altogether; there were never
> >> enough
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 6:31 AM Cuddle Beam wrote:
> IMO the game has already been “ossified” for a while (or
> miscalculated/unacknowledged by the consensus so far) because I’m convinced
> that all actions are regulated.
Every so often, someone decides "we're not really playing Agora
anymore"
the border of what regulated actions are, are its limit*
On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 15:31, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> IMO the game has already been “ossified” for a while (or
> miscalculated/unacknowledged by the consensus so far) because I’m convinced
> that all actions are regulated.
>
> (by ad
IMO the game has already been “ossified” for a while (or
miscalculated/unacknowledged by the consensus so far) because I’m convinced
that all actions are regulated.
(by ad absurdiam:
Regulated actions are actions that are limited by the rules.
Unregulated actions are all actions that aren’t
On Fri, 2019-02-22 at 10:24 +, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> To be honest I never really understood the problem with ossification
> - surely if the game accidentally ends we can just start a "new one"
> with a similar ruleset and gamestate, minimally modified to deossify
> it?
Many players care
To be honest I never really understood the problem with ossification - surely
if the game accidentally ends we can just start a "new one" with a similar
ruleset and gamestate, minimally modified to deossify it?
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 8:56 AM,
On Friday, February 22, 2019 4:08 AM, James Cook wrote:
> Adoption Index: 3.05
Don't think anyone's spotted this yet, but AI can only be a multiple of 0.1. If
I recall correctly, invalid values default to 1.0, which wouldn't work here.
(Or even worse, might work _only in part_.)
-twg
To be safe, I’d go with “the gamestate, excluding the rules” and then
ratify a recent SLR.
-Aris
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:29 PM James Cook wrote:
> Does that mean I should update the proposal to say "The gamestate,
> except for the rules, is changed ..." to make sure the proposal can
> take
Does that mean I should update the proposal to say "The gamestate,
except for the rules, is changed ..." to make sure the proposal can
take effect? Or maybe, to be safe:
The gamestate is changed to be as close as to the following updated
gamestate as this proposal is able to make it. The updated
I'm not sure I'm completely following. Does CFJ 1104 support the
conclusion that players must hop on one foot? Is the idea that Rule A
fails to defer to Rule B because Rule 1030 overrules that attempt at
deference?
On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 18:32, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> This one's been in the FLR
On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 02:47, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-02-22 at 02:40 +, James Cook wrote:
> > That seems to change the meaning of R1698 so that it's no longer
> > talking about actual changes to the rules. Is there any precedent
> > about whether that kind of thing (a
On Fri, 2019-02-22 at 02:40 +, James Cook wrote:
> That seems to change the meaning of R1698 so that it's no longer
> talking about actual changes to the rules. Is there any precedent
> about whether that kind of thing (a lower-power rule changing a
> higher-power rule by defining a term)
On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 08:56, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> Maybe you’re right. Either way, you could do any number of
> not-quite-ossification things (for instance, proposals authored by anyone
> other than you can only amend if the author published the full text of the
> proposal 3.5+ weeks ago).
This one's been in the FLR forever:
CFJ 1104 (called 20 Aug 1998): The presence in a Rule of deference
clause, claiming that the Rule defers to another Rule, does not
prevent a conflict with the other Rule arising, but shows only how
the Rule says that conflict is to be resolved when it
> On Feb 21, 2019, at 1:16 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:03 AM D. Margaux wrote:
>
>> Rule A (power 2): “Except as provided by other rules, a player MUST hop on
>> one foot.”
>>
>> Rule B (power 1): “Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a player MAY elect
>> to
It *is* super-interesting in a constitutional delegation-of-powers
sense! I would say that R1030 does actually turn this into a
conflict. But it's not a conflict between Rule A and Rule B. It's a
conflict between Rule A and Rule 1030, which says that Power overrides
the deference clause in Rule
> On Feb 21, 2019, at 12:26 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Deference clauses only work between rules of the same power. Power is
> the first test applied (R1030).
That is so interesting. It’s counterintuitive to me that it would work that
way. To take an example, here are two hypothetical
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 12:57 AM Gaelan Steele wrote:
> >> The proposed rule is a prohibition on a certain type of change. Because
> >> 106 says “except as prohibited by other rules”, it defers to this rule.
Deference clauses only work between rules of the same power. Power is
the first test
Maybe you’re right. Either way, you could do any number of
not-quite-ossification things (for instance, proposals authored by anyone other
than you can only amend if the author published the full text of the proposal
3.5+ weeks ago).
Gaelan
> On Feb 21, 2019, at 12:52 AM, Madeline wrote:
>
Wouldn't it just be ossified because arbitrary rule changes cannot be
made? The "and/or" does function as an or!
On 2019-02-21 19:37, Gaelan Steele wrote:
I create the AI-1 proposal “Minor bug fix” with the following text:
{
Create the power-1 rule “Don’t mind me” with the following text:
Yes, the "gamestate" includes the rules, and I initially assumed the same thing
as you. But ais523 pointed out a few days ago that rule 105/19 says
A rule change is wholly prevented from taking effect unless its
full text was published, along with an unambiguous and clear
> I'd prefer to just repeat the cleanings. Mass changes to the ruleset
> are one of the riskiest things you can do in Agora (which is why there
> are so many protections preventing them being done by accident).
My proposal says "The gamestate is changed...". I assumed that
includes the rules,
Already on my radar!
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 1:40 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On 2/18/2019 5:18 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
> > This is such a mess lol.
>
> Patent title suggestion for everyone involved in the mess:
> "Badge of the Best Intents".
>
>
Someone has to ask the inevitable question: to what extent should
cleaning self-ratify? What if the clause that is to be cleaned shouldn't
even exist? The reality is that some elements of rules are lost when
applying rule changes. Is it fair to say that when a clause mistakenly
left in the
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
This probably isn't a problem, unless past cleanings were broken (in
which case it still isn't really a problem but we might want to retry
the cleanings in order to make sure all our typos are gone). Dependent
actions otherwise tend not to
It’s a pretty intents situation.
Sorry.
Gaelan
> On Feb 18, 2019, at 5:18 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
> This is such a mess lol.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
On 2/18/2019 5:18 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
This is such a mess lol.
Patent title suggestion for everyone involved in the mess:
"Badge of the Best Intents".
H. Assessor, when the dust has settled I'd also propose that Falsifian is a
good candidate for our first MacGyver award (with this
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 5:22 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 20:18 -0500, D. Margaux wrote:
> > > On Feb 18, 2019, at 8:15 PM, "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk" <
> ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > Just to make sure you're aware: this
On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 20:18 -0500, D. Margaux wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 2019, at 8:15 PM, "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk"
> > wrote:
> >
> > Just to make sure you're aware: this can't change the Rules
> > (penultimate paragraph of R105), just the rest of the gamestate.
> >
> > This probably isn't a
> On Feb 18, 2019, at 8:15 PM, "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk"
> wrote:
>
> Just to make sure you're aware: this can't change the Rules
> (penultimate paragraph of R105), just the rest of the gamestate.
>
> This probably isn't a problem, unless past cleanings were broken (in
> which case it
On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 01:07 +, James Cook wrote:
> The gamestate is changed to what it would have been if the text of the
> following amendment to Rule 2124 had determined whether Agora was
> Satisfied with any dependent action attempted after Proposal 7815,
> rather than the text of what Rule
> Thank you for all this work you've put in to fixing this! I would give you
> some karma, but I've already used my Notice of Honour for the week, and it's
> only Monday so I want to save Corona's in case something truly astonishing
> happens later on.
It's my pleasure. I'm certainly getting
Oh, I was thinking that the designation of a change as a convergence is itself
a(nother) change.
In any case, since this phrasing of the retroactivity clause doesn't rewrite
the history of rule changes, I don't think it matters much either way. But I
think "to the extent allowed by the rules"
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 23:15, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:05 PM, James Cook
> wrote:
> > Can a proposal designate a change as a convergence? I worry about "in
> > accordance with the rules" in R214.
>
> I think this part of R106 accounts for that:
>
>
I am tempted to suggest that we insert something that says: “notwithstanding
the foregoing, Agora is never satisfied with an intent to activate the
Protocol, which is of no force or effect whatsoever.”
> On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:05 PM, James Cook wrote:
>
> Can a proposal designate a change as a
On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:05 PM, James Cook wrote:
> Can a proposal designate a change as a convergence? I worry about "in
> accordance with the rules" in R214.
I think this part of R106 accounts for that:
Except as prohibited by other rules, a proposal that
Can a proposal designate a change as a convergence? I worry about "in
accordance with the rules" in R214.
Is there anything wrong with D. Margaux's latest suggestion? I like
the fact that it doesn't try to retroactively change the rule's
history. (Though the retroactive rule change might be
I would say that the reading of the proposal in question would imply an
override of all the amendments since 7815. I haven't been following this
thread so I don't know what a better solution would be.
On 2/18/19 9:21 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 2/18/2019 7:07 AM, James Cook wrote:
The
An alternative is: "Change the gamestate [including the ruleset] to what it
would have been if the below amendment had taken effect immediately after
Proposal 7815, and if no further changes had been made to Rule 2124 since.
Designate this change as a convergence." I believe this would allow
More generally, have we ever done a true retroactive rule change that
overwrites known rules history?
I'm wondering about a slight wording change to side-step making true
retroactive rules changes: The rule is amended going forward, but "the rest
of the gamestate" is set to what it would have
To address G’s concern, what if the proposal were to say something like this:
The gamestate is changed to what it would have been if the text of the
following amendment to Rule 2124 had determined whether Agora was Satisfied
with any dependent action attempted after Proposal 7815, rather than
On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 08:21 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On 2/18/2019 7:07 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > The gamestate is changed as if the below amendment had taken effect
> > immediately after Proposal 7815, and as if no further changes had been
> > made to that Rule since. (In particular, the text
On 2/18/2019 7:07 AM, James Cook wrote:
The gamestate is changed as if the below amendment had taken effect
immediately after Proposal 7815, and as if no further changes had been
made to that Rule since. (In particular, the text of Rule 2124 is now
as described in the amendment, since the
The person who will distribute the proposal has every intention of doing
so. Thank you for point it out though.
-Aris
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 5:10 PM James Cook wrote:
> > Co-authors: ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk, D. Margaux
>
> "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk" refers to the same person as ais523. I
>
On Fri, 2019-02-15 at 17:59 +, James Cook wrote:
> Thanks to the listed co-authors. (AIS523, I didn't see you in the
> directory; let me know if you're a player and I can polish your name
> in the co-author list).
I'm not currently a player, although I've been a player for fairly long
periods
Thanks to the listed co-authors. (AIS523, I didn't see you in the
directory; let me know if you're a player and I can polish your name
in the co-author list).
I edited several parts of the text to make in clear that any reference
to supporters or objectors is in terms of a particular intent. Note
> I also like this version.
>
> However, there's another problem: a dangling "it". (This is also in the
> present version of the rules, which I noticed during RTRW.) You should
> make it clear whether the objectors and supports are to the /intent/,
> or to the /action/. (Based on the way the other
> On Feb 15, 2019, at 10:04 AM, James Cook wrote:
>
> 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, there are
> at least N Objectors to that intent.
This needs an “and,” but otherwise looks good to me!
On Fri, 2019-02-15 at 03:02 -0500, D. Margaux wrote:
> > On Feb 14, 2019, at 11:14 PM, James Cook
> > wrote:
> >
> > Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action
> > unless at least one of the following is true:
> >
> > 1. The action is to be performed Without N
> On Feb 14, 2019, at 11:14 PM, James Cook wrote:
>
> Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action
> unless at least one of the following is true:
>
> 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it has
> at least N objectors.
>
>
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 19:05, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> the ratio of supporters to objectors is no more than N, and the
> > action has no supporters or at least one objector.
>
> Dumb basic formal logic question that I should really know the answer to:
>
> If O=0, the ratio S/O is
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 14:48, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On 2/14/2019 6:27 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > When I stumbled across this, my guess was that at some point, the
> > rules were re-arranged so that Rule 1728 is responsible everything
> > about Notice, where Rule 2124 was previously, and in the
I agree with Ørjan's opinion here, that a dependent action specifying
multiple conditions is supposed to require all of those conditions.
For example, the "and" between 2 and 3 is evidence of this intent.
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 01:06, Madeline wrote:
>
> Suggested wording:
>
> Agora is Satisfied
Here's a draft implementing Ørjan's suggestion:
Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if
and only if all of the following are true:
1. If the action is to be performed Without N Objections, then it
has fewer than N objectors.
2. If the
No, it's one where you promise not to act unless both are fulfilled.
Greetings,
Ørjan, who keeps seeing more and more evidence that humans are naturally
bad at this kind of distinction.
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Madeline wrote:
How so? Does it need to have both enough support and a lack of
How so? Does it need to have both enough support and a lack of
objectors? Do we even have anything right now that works that way? Do we
*want* to have anything right now that works that way?
If it's one where you choose which one to declare your intent with, I
don't see how it causes a problem.
Quoting myself from my response to D. Margaux:
"That breaks if intents are allowed to be both with objection and with
support."
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Madeline wrote:
Suggested wording:
Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if and only if
one or more
Suggested wording:
Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if and only if
one or more of the following are true:
1. the action is to be performed Without N Objections and it
has fewer than N objectors;
2. the action is to be performed With N support
I added the negation because I was worried about interpretations of
whether "if X then Y" is true. With classical logic, we may interpret
that as "not X or Y", which would work great, but it could also be
interpreted as the list entry only being present if X is there, so
we'd end up with "if all
I don't like the essential double negation in this - if people were
confused about what the previous version means, then that's just going to
make it worse. And I'm not convinced #3 means what you want if there are
supporters and no objectors - undefined values mess up logic.
Instead I'd
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote:
The way it should work is for Agora to be satisfied if any of (1)
through (4) are satisfied. That is, Agora is “satisfied” if there were
fewer than N objections and the action was without N objections; OR if
there are more than N supporters and the action
> the ratio of supporters to objectors is no more than N, and the
> action has no supporters or at least one objector.
Dumb basic formal logic question that I should really know the answer to:
If O=0, the ratio S/O is undefined.
Does (S/O = undefined) => (S/O > N) = FALSE? Or
To re-iterate a note I made at the start of all that noise: I
recognize we might not be in agreement about how Rule 2124 is supposed
to work, but I at least want the current version of my proposal to
reflect my own thinking clearly.
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 18:36, James Cook wrote:
>
> Sorry for
On 2/14/2019 6:45 AM, James Cook wrote:
But I also thought, because of that, that we were supposed to be able to
say things like "with support and no objection". If that doesn't get used
anywhere, maybe we should clarify that Agoran Satisfaction is an or, and
include #4 as "the action is to be
On 2/14/2019 6:27 AM, James Cook wrote:
When I stumbled across this, my guess was that at some point, the
rules were re-arranged so that Rule 1728 is responsible everything
about Notice, where Rule 2124 was previously, and in the process, (4)
was supposed to be removed from 2124. But that's
What if we change the Agoran Satisfaction rule to be a bit closer to my
pedantic elabouration, by saying "if and only if all of the following are
true", and making each individual condition automatically true of the
condition it refers to isn't part of the dependent action's requirements?
Then
> On Feb 14, 2019, at 9:27 AM, James Cook wrote:
>
> That would work, because Rule 1728 already covers notice: "3. If the
> action is to be performed With T Notice, if the intent was announced
> at least T earlier.". Is there anything wrong with leaving it that way
> (which would be
> The way it should work is for Agora to be satisfied if any of (1) through (4)
> are satisfied. That is, Agora is “satisfied” if there were fewer than N
> objections and the action was without N objections; OR if there are more than
> N supporters and the action was with N support; OR the
Lol, I slap my knee, good find.
The Ruleset seems like its an overall inconsistent, a chimera of individual
styles of writing. For example, R1728 also has a list (posted below), yet
it *does not* follow the style of connection like the one Falsifan has
pointed out.
A rule which purports to
Nice find. This is definitely a badly worded rule, and in need of fixing!
“Agoran Satisfaction” refers to meeting the specific conditions for performing
an action by a particular method. So, for example, Agora is satisfied if there
are 0 objections and the action is Without N Objections, but it
Well, if you assume an "or" between each clause, then it means Agora is
always satisfied with the intent if the intent is "with T notice" (meaning
once the waiting period has past, no count of supporters or objectors is
needed), eg: Satisfied if (support AND enough support) OR (objections AND
(Also, how did #4 end up in that rule?)
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 13:38, James Cook wrote:
>
> If my CFJ is judged true, I welcome any proposal that would avoid
> messing up all those past dependent actions. I feel bad depriving
> anyone of a well-earned victory. Is there a clean way to do that?
>
If my CFJ is judged true, I welcome any proposal that would avoid
messing up all those past dependent actions. I feel bad depriving
anyone of a well-earned victory. Is there a clean way to do that?
I suppose I could draft a proposal that some specific effects happen,
e.g. "I propose that Gaelan
97 matches
Mail list logo
