On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 18:52, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 2/6/20 1:49 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > Title: Blink test v1.1
> > AI: 1
> > Chamber: Legislation
> > Text: {
> >
> > Amend Rule 2601 to read in full:
> >
> > If this is the only sentence in this rule, and it has been at
On 2/6/20 1:49 PM, James Cook wrote:
> Title: Blink test v1.1
> AI: 1
> Chamber: Legislation
> Text: {
>
> Amend Rule 2601 to read in full:
>
> If this is the only sentence in this rule, and it has been at
> least one week since this rule was last amended, then any player
> CAN
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 02:46, omd via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 1:45 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-business
> wrote:
> > Enact a new power-1 rule entitled "Default Mechanisms" reading as follows:
>
> I feel like this makes more sense in a high-power rule so it doesn't
> break
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 3:05 AM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On Thu., Jan. 30, 2020, 00:47 Aris Merchant via agora-discussion, <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > If you’re going to do a revision, I’d appreciate it if you made the zombie
> > trust apply to all assets.
On Thu., Jan. 30, 2020, 00:47 Aris Merchant via agora-discussion, <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> If you’re going to do a revision, I’d appreciate it if you made the zombie
> trust apply to all assets.
>
> -Aris
>
The only other assets are blots which, in my opinion, ought to be
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 9:45 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Wed., Jan. 29, 2020, 23:35 Luke Tyler via agora-discussion, <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > > Amend Rule 2532 (Zombies) by:
> > > - appending "A player CAN,
On Wed., Jan. 29, 2020, 23:35 Luke Tyler via agora-discussion, <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > Amend Rule 2532 (Zombies) by:
> > - appending "A player CAN, without 3 objections, flip eir own master
> switch
> > to any other player. Other players SHOULD NOT object unless they
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 21:46, omd via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 1:45 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-business
> wrote:
> > Enact a new power-1 rule entitled "Default Mechanisms" reading as
> follows:
>
> I feel like this makes more sense in a
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 6:52 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
>
> On 1/29/2020 5:14 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote:
> > G. wrote:
> >> awww - i'd seen that and my birthday is Feb 4th
> >
> > Same, though it sounds like it wouldn't have gone unnoticed until May
>
On 1/29/2020 5:14 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote:
> G. wrote:
>> awww - i'd seen that and my birthday is Feb 4th
>
> Same, though it sounds like it wouldn't have gone unnoticed until May
> anyway...
>
> You can still use it, though! No chance of the proposal passing
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 19:21, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> A bit messy, no? Most deferences in rules actually do something
> significant; if it doesn't, it's likely to make people go "why is that
> in there?"
>
> -Aris
>
It's also
G. wrote:
> awww - i'd seen that and my birthday is Feb 4th
Same, though it sounds like it wouldn't have gone unnoticed until May
anyway...
You can still use it, though! No chance of the proposal passing before
then, barring shenanigans.
-twg
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 2:38 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-business
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 17:34, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 29, 2020, at 1:46 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business <
> > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 17:35, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> What about different mechanisms? I think we have rules where the officer
> CAN do it by announcement, but everyone else needs CONSENT.
>
> Gaelan
>
Sounds like a fun CFJ. ;)
-Alexis
On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 12:35 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
wrote:
> Adding a withdrawal clause prevents the
> initiator from changing eir mind later, which is IMO generally a good thing
> as it means that people can take withdrawal at face value and not have to
> remember to object anyway.
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 15:11, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> Why would we want this? Our system is explicitly designed to make sure
> that people can't announce intent to do something with support or with
> Agoran consent, and then single-handedly
On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 12:09 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> I think my (misleading named) “too intense” scam from February of this year
> might be relevant.
>
> The gist of that was that the rules at the time required that declarations of
> intent be conspicuous and,
I think my (misleading named) “too intense” scam from February of this year
might be relevant.
The gist of that was that the rules at the time required that declarations of
intent be conspicuous and, *independently*, that intents had to be announced
four days before performing the action.
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 12:24, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> Another thought experiment:
> 1. intent
> 2. intent again
> 3. action that's very direct and explicit in citing intent #1 (e.g.
> "having
> posted intent in the quoted message (#1), I do
On 1/23/2020 8:28 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> More debatable whether:
>
> 1. intent
> 2. intent again
> 3. withdraw one intent but not the other
>
> works, but since it refers to "an announcement of intent", the intended
> interpretation is that it applies to the specific announcement, reinforced
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 12:12, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> Sorry, I mis-typed, but it doesn't change it IMO. The question "did I
> publish
> and then subsequently withdraw an announcement of intent" becomes true
> when I
> do it once, and remains
On 1/23/2020 8:28 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 11:20, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 1/23/2020 7:49 AM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business wrote:
>>> Proposal: A Degree of Inefficiency (AI=3)
>>> {{{
>>> Amend Rule 2595
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 11:20, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> On 1/23/2020 7:49 AM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business wrote:
> > Proposal: A Degree of Inefficiency (AI=3)
> > {{{
> > Amend Rule 2595 (Performing a Dependent Action) by inserting ", and
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 06:58, D. Margaux via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>
> > On Jan 19, 2020, at 9:27 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > It's a new thing from some universities to offer gender neutral degree
> >
On 1/19/2020 3:04 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 at 10:40, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> Amend Rule 217, "Interpreting the Rules", by inserting "authorial
>> intent," after "past judgements,".
>>
>
>
Alexis wrote:
> > Amend Rule 217, "Interpreting the Rules", by inserting "authorial
> > intent," after "past judgements,".
>
> Quite opposed; this would require judges to read mailing lists to determine
> intent.
Fair enough! Like I said, mostly there to provoke discussion. Would you
feel
What if we set the maximum dynamically, such as by setting it to “no more than
50% of total voting strength.” That has the benefit of not needing constant
adjustment, and also serves as an anti-scam measure.
Gaealn
> On Jan 13, 2020, at 11:13 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>
On 1/13/2020 10:14 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote:
> A third option to magnify its effect, beyond decreasing the default or
> increasing the maximum, would be to increase the strength of _everyone's_
> AGAINST votes.
Also kind of defeats the purpose of a sole-person's
Alexis wrote:
> It's still significant on a high-AI proposal, but I'd suggest that perhaps
> an alternative would be to decrease the default to 2? The Prime Minister is
> also affected by the default being 3.
The original justification for increasing the default to 3 was to prevent
a single
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 00:38, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> This doesn’t really do all that much—default voting strength is 3 and max
> is 5, so it’s a little under a double vote. Maybe we need to increase the
> range of allowed voting strengths?
>
On 1/12/2020 9:10 PM, omd via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 8:46 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business
> wrote:
>> Create a Power=2 Rule, "Sacrifice", with the following text:
>>
>> The Shogun CAN sacrifice eir honour by publishing a valid Notice
>> of Honour that
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 4:19 PM omd via agora-discussion
wrote:
> This should probably say “sent via” instead of “sent to”, to match the
> language in R478’s definition of “public message”. After all, the
> affected messages were all successfully “sent to” the list in a
> literal sense; it’s
Both of my drafts used the same definition. Cobb’s version did switch to
another one.
Gaelan
> On Dec 29, 2019, at 4:48 PM, omd via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 5:17 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>> So, starting with a trivial case, I think it’s
On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 5:17 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
wrote:
> So, starting with a trivial case, I think it’s pretty clear that a player
> registering does not constitute a “change in the ruleset,” even though it
> affects the functioning of rules with regard to that person. My
So, starting with a trivial case, I think it’s pretty clear that a player
registering does not constitute a “change in the ruleset,” even though it
affects the functioning of rules with regard to that person. My goal was word
the rule such that it under the same case. However, an argument could
On 12/29/2019 1:51 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
On 12/29/19 4:39 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
That's the exact reason is why R1030 is written that way - R1030 prevents
the rule from "getting into the ruleset" in the first place. When you
say "precedence over all
On 12/29/19 4:39 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
That's the exact reason is why R1030 is written that way - R1030 prevents
the rule from "getting into the ruleset" in the first place. When you
say "precedence over all rules" it's a straightforward precedence claim
of the sort that's
The paragraph I’m attempting to exploit is this one (quoted from 1030/13): {
No change to the ruleset can occur that would cause a Rule to
directly claim precedence over this Rule as a means of determining
precedence. This applies to changes by the enactment or amendment
of
On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 1:07 PM Edward Murphy via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> Aris wrote:
>
> > All of the messages having been sent to the public forum would apparently
> > stop me from being PM (see the recent thread). In general, it seems unfair
> > to have changes to the gamestate occurring
Aris wrote:
All of the messages having been sent to the public forum would apparently
stop me from being PM (see the recent thread). In general, it seems unfair
to have changes to the gamestate occurring without a significant number of
people being apprised of them. I’d urge going the other
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 8:28 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> On 12/12/19 1:24 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > If it fails, I'd say it fails
> > because the coin source is too ambiguous, not because the proposal has
> > no coins.
>
>
> In general, are proposals bound by the same clarity rules for actions as
>
On 12/12/19 1:24 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
If it fails, I'd say it fails
because the coin source is too ambiguous, not because the proposal has
no coins.
In general, are proposals bound by the same clarity rules for actions as
players?
For example, "by announcement" imparts some clarity
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 10:28 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 9:14 PM Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 2:01 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
> > ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 2019-12-11 at 13:54 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > > I submit the
On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 2:01 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-12-11 at 13:54 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I submit the following Proposal, "Minor Giveaway", AI-1:
> > ---
> >
> > I
On 11/10/19 6:18 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
String is
a chunkstring switch, with possible values of sets of persons, defaulting to
the empty set. Whenever a chunkstring is created in someone's possession, or
transfered to
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, October 28, 2019 6:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On 10/28/2019 3:27 PM, Nch via agora-discussion wrote:
>
> > Cons
> >
> > -
> >
> > -Soft-locks newer players out of writing proposals. They're likely to write
> > duds that won't pass for a
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, October 28, 2019 7:04 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-10-28 at 16:58 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > On 10/28/2019 3:27 PM, Nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> >
> > > Cons
> > >
> > > -
> > >
> > > -Soft-locks newer players out
On Mon, 2019-10-28 at 16:58 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On 10/28/2019 3:27 PM, Nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> > Cons
> >
> > -Soft-locks newer players out of writing proposals. They're likely
> > to write duds that won't pass for a while and this punishes them
> > for that
>
> This in
On 10/28/2019 3:27 PM, Nch via agora-discussion wrote:
Cons
-Soft-locks newer players out of writing proposals. They're likely to write
duds that won't pass for a while and this punishes them for that
This in particular was solved (in one implementation) by making it cheaper
for new
Oh that's right! I had that script I mentioned below spit out a version in
XML format and played with it for a bit but I never used it much. I think
omd, who did a stint before me, had a YAML version too.
On 10/28/2019 4:42 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
Ah. You mentioned something about having
Ah. You mentioned something about having the ruleset in XML (of course, you
mentioned that right after I parsed everything…), and I assumed that was part
of some automation.
Gaelan
> On Oct 28, 2019, at 4:17 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On 10/28/2019 3:06 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> Heh,
On 10/28/2019 3:06 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
Heh, it’s pretty standard. It happened with Rulekeepor too:
G had some some sort of ruleset automation, which to be fair wasn’t public. I
parsed his FLR into YAML and wrote the new code in Ruby.
Alexis kept the YAML format and rewrote the code in
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, October 28, 2019 4:31 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 10/28/19 5:20 PM, James Cook wrote:
>
> > I am more interested right now in seeing more things to spend Coins
> > on; the Coin balances are starting to feel like meaningless numbers.
> > There was some
Heh, it’s pretty standard. It happened with Rulekeepor too:
G had some some sort of ruleset automation, which to be fair wasn’t public. I
parsed his FLR into YAML and wrote the new code in Ruby.
Alexis kept the YAML format and rewrote the code in Haskell, of all things.
Trigon kept the YAML,
On 10/28/19 5:20 PM, James Cook wrote:
I am more interested right now in seeing more things to spend Coins
on; the Coin balances are starting to feel like meaningless numbers.
There was some discussion in September about times in the past where
there were shortages, e.g. proposals were
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 at 01:51, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> That’s a very interesting point, and one that I hadn’t considered. One
> possibility would be to have a few days at the beginning of each week in
> which only the person with the top reward (i.e. the “main” officeholder).
> This would help
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 at 01:43, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> This has been proposed before, IIRC, and consensus is against it for
> two reasons (it’s possible I’m misremembering here, but all the
> concerns are valid regardless). Firstly, many official duties are
> essential to the game, and having them
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 at 01:38, Nch wrote:
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 7:31 PM, James Cook
> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 at 15:23, Gaelan Steele g...@canishe.com wrote:
> >
> > > To be honest, I’m not sure I see the point. In my experience interim
>
That’s a very interesting point, and one that I hadn’t considered. One
possibility would be to have a few days at the beginning of each week in which
only the person with the top reward (i.e. the “main” officeholder). This would
help in the most common cases, but maybe would still discourage
This has been proposed before, IIRC, and consensus is against it for
two reasons (it’s possible I’m misremembering here, but all the
concerns are valid regardless). Firstly, many official duties are
essential to the game, and having them assigned to the same person
promotes accountability, since
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Saturday, October 26, 2019 7:31 PM, James Cook wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 at 15:23, Gaelan Steele g...@canishe.com wrote:
>
> > To be honest, I’m not sure I see the point. In my experience interim
> > incumbents nearly always win elections, and most modern
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Saturday, October 26, 2019 7:53 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> TL;DR: No “officeholders”; anyone can do a job if it hasn’t been done yet
> that {week,month}. They get paid for doing so, and get paid more if they’ve
> been doing it consistently or if it’s
On 10/26/19 8:53 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
TL;DR: No “officeholders”; anyone can do a job if it hasn’t been done yet that
{week,month}. They get paid for doing so, and get paid more if they’ve been
doing it consistently or if it’s been overdue for a while.
This is an interesting idea - but I
I’ve had a proposal for an alternative “duty” (name TBD) bouncing around for a
while. It goes something like this:
* Most offices (basically, all but the imposed ones and the ones that handle
secret information) get replaced with “duties.”
* Anyone can fulfill a duty (i.e. publish the report,
On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 at 15:23, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> To be honest, I’m not sure I see the point. In my experience interim
> incumbents nearly always win elections, and most modern Agoran offices have
> very little power anyway. All I really see this doing is punishing those who
> take up work
On 10/26/2019 8:28 AM, Nch wrote:
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Saturday, October 26, 2019 10:22 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
To be honest, I’m not sure I see the point. In my experience interim incumbents
nearly always win elections, and most modern Agoran offices have very little
On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 21:40, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Bleh.
>
> I note that holding a potentially-infinite number of offices would be an
> amusing punishment for lazy rule-writing, but conclude that it’s a little
> harsh. I retract my proposal and submit the following one:
The new proposal is
On 10/20/19 9:18 PM, Nch wrote:
On its face I don't think this or the other two work. However I think it might
be possible to do this...
I submit the following proposal, "Persistent", AI=3 {
When this rule is amended, also amend it by appending this sentence to the end
of the rule.
}
FWIW, the intention of my proposal was to handle broken rules better, not to
make this a legitimate method of tracking switches. Apologies if you already
understood that.
Gaelan
> On Oct 20, 2019, at 2:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> A more general comment on both this and Murphy's proposal
A more general comment on both this and Murphy's proposal - maybe, if we're
in the mood to embark on a handful of minigames, we should create a new
office with the up-front understanding that the particular office should be
assigned tracking of the various minigames, so anyone holding the
On 10/20/19 1:36 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Currently, this sort of penalty is allowed for the Cold Hand of
Justice, but not for Summary Judgement. That seems like an error to
me. I'd be tempted to repeal the mandate entirely
Yeah, that's my fault. I changed "person who plays the game" to
On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 05:37, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> Currently, this sort of penalty is allowed for the Cold Hand of
> Justice, but not for Summary Judgement. That seems like an error to
> me. I'd be tempted to repeal the mandate entirely, but a) allowing
> non-players to join contracts is
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 2:19 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On 10/18/2019 1:11 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > I submit the following proposal:
> >
> > Title: R2478 Fix
> >
> > AI: 1.7
> >
> > Text:
> >
> > {
> >
> > Amend Rule 2478 ("Vigilante Justice") by replacing the text "a person (the
> > perp) who
On 9/29/2019 12:11 PM, James Cook wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 22:22, Aris Merchant
>> Longstanding, although admittedly uncodified, precedent states that
>> someone always NEED NOT do something that e CANNOT do, with like one
>> exception not applicable here. This is one of those things
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 22:22, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 3:10 PM James Cook wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 18:44, Edward Murphy wrote:
> > > Proposal: Finger bending
> > > (AI = 1.7, co-author = twg)
> > >
> > > Amend Rule 2478 (Vigilante Justice) by replacing this
On 9/28/19 7:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Past example: win an auction, and transfer all your coins to someone
else
before the auction ends. Then for this R2551 SHALL:
> The winner of the lot SHALL, in a timely fashion, pay a fee (the
> number of the Auction's currency equal to eir
On 9/28/2019 5:29 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:> On 9/28/19 7:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> if you don't get your coins back before that timer expires, it is
>> technically IMPOSSIBLE for you to pay the fee at any point in time.
>> That's why we had to add the below clause to R2550, after someone got
On 9/28/19 7:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
if you don't get your coins back before that timer expires, it is
technically IMPOSSIBLE for you to pay the fee at any point in time.
That's why we had to add the below clause to R2550, after someone got
away
with that:
> A person SHALL NOT bid on
On 9/28/2019 4:34 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Oh, I’m sorry. You’re right, though it might be possible to get yourself
> into a position where you SHALL do something you CANNOT do, which would be
> governed by the same principle. Imagine contracting to pay someone 1
> coins.
Past example:
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 4:12 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 9/28/19 6:55 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 3:29 PM Jason Cobb
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/28/19 6:22 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >>> Longstanding, although admittedly uncodified, precedent states that
> >>> someone always
On 9/28/19 6:55 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 3:29 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
On 9/28/19 6:22 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Longstanding, although admittedly uncodified, precedent states that
someone always NEED NOT do something that e CANNOT do, with like one
exception not
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 3:29 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 9/28/19 6:22 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Longstanding, although admittedly uncodified, precedent states that
> > someone always NEED NOT do something that e CANNOT do, with like one
> > exception not applicable here. This is one of those
On 9/28/19 6:22 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Longstanding, although admittedly uncodified, precedent states that
someone always NEED NOT do something that e CANNOT do, with like one
exception not applicable here. This is one of those things that should
really be codified; I'll write up a proposal to
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 3:10 PM James Cook wrote:
>
> On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 18:44, Edward Murphy wrote:
> > Proposal: Finger bending
> > (AI = 1.7, co-author = twg)
> >
> > Amend Rule 2478 (Vigilante Justice) by replacing this text:
> >
> >The Referee is by default the investigator for
On 9/1/2019 12:36 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 1, 2019 at 12:34 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
> How does this differ from Proposal 8233?
That one died, right? (not put back in the pool?) I preferred the WILL
phrasing that I protoed a while ago over the "has a DUTY". Also of course
On 8/1/2019 8:12 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
On 8/1/19 10:54 AM, James Cook wrote:
R991 still says "The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that
all interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge.".
I'm not sure what an "eligible judge" is, but it might just be any
Player
On 8/1/19 10:54 AM, James Cook wrote:
R991 still says "The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that
all interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge.".
I'm not sure what an "eligible judge" is, but it might just be any
Player who the CFJ can be assigned to, i.e. anyone
I think it is logical to give this responsibility to the Rulekeepor, and
I would take it up. A couple years ago when I was running for Rulekeepor
I had a similar idea, but eventually gave up on it because I figured it
was quite unimportant.
As of writing this, I express complete nonchalance
Jason Cobb
On 7/29/19 10:26 PM, James Cook wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 03:37, Jason Cobb wrote:
A Rule that designates a switch as "secured" (at a given power
level) designates changes to that switch's value as secured (at that
power level).
...
Amend Rule 869 as follows:
On 7/28/2019 1:03 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
That may be a reasonable point; I know that tends to be a weakness in
my proposals, although I tried pretty hard not to do it in that one.
Still, I'm not sure I see a much simpler codification of our existing
precedents, especially given that it has
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 12:52 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On 7/28/2019 12:41 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Like, forgive me if I'm missing something, but in light of that
> > provision I don't see how this could also be broken?
> >
> > Also, did you ever write that time security proto or come
On 7/28/2019 12:41 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Like, forgive me if I'm missing something, but in light of that
> provision I don't see how this could also be broken?
>
> Also, did you ever write that time security proto or come up with a
> list of changes that would be satisfactory?
I won't
On 7/28/2019 12:21 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
What about the "For the purposes of this rule, agreement includes both
consent and agreement specified by contract"? That pretty clearly says
that if the contract species it, consent isn't necessary.
The way you've written it makes it sound (to me
Like, forgive me if I'm missing something, but in light of that
provision I don't see how this could also be broken?
Also, did you ever write that time security proto or come up with a
list of changes that would be satisfactory?
-Aris
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 12:21 PM Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
>
What about the "For the purposes of this rule, agreement includes both
consent and agreement specified by contract"? That pretty clearly says
that if the contract species it, consent isn't necessary.
-Aris
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 12:16 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Actually, I think your proposal
Actually, I think your proposal may be broken. If a contract (once created
with 2 people) explicitly allows a third person to join without the consent
of the existing parties, it's not clear if your proposed text overrides that
or if "agreeing to the contract that allows other people to join
Okay, I agree that definitely sounds better in the long run. That
being said, there isn't any reason to retract my proposal right now,
so I'm not going to.
-Aris
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 11:57 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I've been working on a major contract re-write for the last week or so
>
I've been working on a major contract re-write for the last week or so
based on what we've found/discussed - I'll publish a proto tomorrow-ish.
I don't think we can bolt on to the existing I think it's just better
to do a complete re-write.
Rough outline:
- Better defines agreements as a
It is a significant concern IMO. I can think of a dozen times or more that
an Assessor benefited from a scam in this manner in a proposal (myself
included). I don't support allowing the assessor to have the final word
on this, I think.
On 7/27/2019 1:04 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
The main
You know, I was planning on becoming an evil Assessor, but I guess I
can't now.
Jason Cobb
On 7/27/19 4:14 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
I act on behalf of Jacob Arduino to submit a proposal "Evil Assessor Safeguard", AI=3.0, with twg and G. as
co-authors and the text 'If there is a rule
401 - 500 of 1906 matches
Mail list logo
