Oh I see. If anything it’s the opposite—there’s a theory under which you
three might win, and not me and G.
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 3:36 AM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> I meant the way there are separate CFJs ruling on "Trigon, twg, D.
> Margaux, G., and L" and "Trigon, twg, and L". It feels like y
I meant the way there are separate CFJs ruling on "Trigon, twg, D. Margaux, G.,
and L" and "Trigon, twg, and L". It feels like you're going to pull out some
sort of technicality that means only you and G. won. :P (I do realise they are
semantically different too, I just found it amusing)
-twg
No scam in this one. This was the culmination of the discussion thread
about what CFJs were needed after the Round Robin confusion. I suggested
one judge because the issues are very intermingled. (Can’t be me because I
called the CFJs.)
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 5:10 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
Hmm. For some reason this feels like a build-up to a scam. Oh well, let's see
what happens.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, October 15, 2018 7:24 PM, D Margaux wrote:
> I CFJ the following three statements, and suggest to the Arbitor that they
> should probably be assigned t
Certainly an interesting idea. Unfortunately, I joined too late to
participate in the voting. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
On 10/9/2018 6:18 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
The proposals were constructed such that each player was on exactly two
slates. So, ATM would have won if only A or C won; if both A and C won; or
if C
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> On 10/9/2018 4:20 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Oct 2018, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2018-10-09 at 16:08 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > > > Since you are Slate A and Slate C, you either can't win the game by
> > > > announceme
On 10/9/2018 4:20 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Tue, 2018-10-09 at 16:08 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
Since you are Slate A and Slate C, you either can't win the game by
announcement because Slate B players can as the former, or you can't win
the
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-10-09 at 16:08 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > Since you are Slate A and Slate C, you either can't win the game by
> > announcement because Slate B players can as the former, or you can't win
> > the game by announcement becaus
The proposals were constructed such that each player was on exactly two
slates. So, ATM would have won if only A or C won; if both A and C won; or
if C and B won, but not A. Other permutations would obtain for other
players. The hope was that it would lead to some fun strategic voting
behavior.
At
On Tue, 2018-10-09 at 16:08 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> Since you are Slate A and Slate C, you either can't win the game by
> announcement because Slate B players can as the former, or you can't win
> the game by announcement because there is no mechanism for the latter to
> do so.
Doesn't th
Relevant ruletext:
Rule 2580/2 (Power=1)
Round Robin
The "Effective Date" is the Agoran day that is 8 days after the
Agoran day on which this Rule was enacted. This Rule is
automatically repealed at 00:01 UTC on the Agoran day after the
Effective Date.
The Slate A
If this is how we're going to do it...
I win the game.
I also object to Cuddle's intent to declare apathy.
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018, 04:48 Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I win the game too.
> I intend to declare victory by apathy, with its set of players being just
>
> myself
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 8:0
CB: if you want to win by apathy, then you’d better decide CFJ 3652 before I
get around to blotting you for the late decision. :-P
> On Oct 9, 2018, at 6:47 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> I win the game too.
> I intend to declare victory by apathy, with its set of players being just
>
> myself
>
Good point. Thank you for catching that. I'll modify the proposal so that
the "Effective Date" is defined as "the Agoran day that is 8 days after the
day on which this Rule is enacted."
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 10:42 AM Alex Smith
wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-09-20 at 10:40 -0400, D Margaux wrote:
>
On Thu, 2018-09-20 at 10:40 -0400, D Margaux wrote:
> Great idea. How about these protoproposals?
You need a week delay to prevent Assessor scams. (Nothing forces the
Assessor to resolve proposals all at once, or in order.)
--
ais523
Great idea. How about these protoproposals?
I think the idea works better if players are each assigned to two slates.
It increases the odds that a proposal passes, and creates some interesting
dynamics for people to think through.
I assigned players randomly to the slates below.
//
Title: Slate
Try creating actual rules. They’re the standard mechanism for delayed
effect, and can repeal themselves under whatever circumstances you’d like.
-Aris
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 3:41 PM D Margaux wrote:
> Hmm. I’ll think about how to re-word the proposals. In the meantime, I
> withdraw them so tha
Cool. I highly support a 3-way proposal composition in this form if
the wording can be figured out.
But I don't think this version works, because the proposals have to be
resolved (by the Assessor) sequentially not simultaneously, and
conditionals can't be resolved based on future conditions (
18 matches
Mail list logo
