On Tue, 9 Jul 2013, Jonathan Rouillard wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote:
> >> I support. I object. (Always wanted to do that and have it be
> >> meaningful.)
> >
> > It's not though... you CANNOT wear two hats :-P
>
> Pfff. Loo
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote:
>> I support. I object. (Always wanted to do that and have it be
>> meaningful.)
>
> It's not though... you CANNOT wear two hats :-P
Pfff. Look, everyone, seems like G. is *poor* and *Irish*.
~ Roujo
On Tue, 9 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 20:50 -0400, Fool wrote (about CFJ 3362):
> > Therefore I intend, with two support (and without five Elder objections)
> > to appeal. I call on the appellate court to substitute a verdict of
> > GUILTY, and suggest the death penalty.
On 09/07/2013 5:46 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
Generally I don't think it's true the "meta-agreement" is subject to
amendment
by even "true" nomic. There are still limits. What if we made Agora
purport to
be played by the NZ
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
Generally I don't think it's true the "meta-agreement" is subject to amendment
by even "true" nomic. There are still limits. What if we made Agora purport to
be played by the NZ All Blacks?
This would paralyze the rule unt
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Mainly, the sticking point is in the broadness of R2368's "arbitrary",
> coupled with the fact that the mechanism CAN be changed within Agora,
> but CAN'T be changed by the Party, so from the point of view of Agora,
> there is at least one thing thing that
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Sure, a party can do this. And then splinter off and be a nomic.
> > BUT IN DOING SO, IT IS NO LONGER THE PARTY that the officer
> > Is tracking.
>
> fwiw, I agree that "splintering off" doesn't count, but
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
> I had a look. The situation looks to me like this: the question was whether
> Agora would recognise it as a Contest, and when it broke a certain Agoran
> rule, it ceased to be a Contest. There wasn't a "divergent" version of
> Claustronomic that still existed in
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Sure, a party can do this. And then splinter off and be a nomic.
> BUT IN DOING SO, IT IS NO LONGER THE PARTY that the officer
> Is tracking.
fwiw, I agree that "splintering off" doesn't count, but I think that a
system of rules that exists i
On 08/07/2013 9:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
And when you think about it, no Nomic compels its own rule following. All
Nomics are implicitly mediated by something, and this is not subject to
amendment. Usually this is by its players directly, but there are other
possibilities.
But they *are* subj
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
> R2410 allows a party constitution to amend itself arbitrarily. The fact that
> these amendments are mediated via R2410 and player announcement does not make
> it not a Nomic.
The point is, the Party cannot *choose its own method of mediation*, while a
nomic can
11 matches
Mail list logo
