Re: DIS: Re: BUS: register
I suppose I'll be referred to as "Wooble" since I'm using it in 2 other nomics. On 7/3/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Geoffrey Spear wrote: >I wish to register as a Player. Per CFJ 1263, you are now a player (as of your message). Do you wish to be referred to by any particular nickname? -zefram
Re: DIS: proto: judicial reform
Can anyone expound on why it would be necessary to have both UNDECIDABLE and another category, whatever it ends up being called, for when there's not enough information to determine if the question is undecidable? If it's "not capable of being accurately described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry case was initiated" due to lack of information, doesn't UNDECIDABLE pretty much cover it? What if there's not enough information to call something UNDETERMINED? Will that require yet another synonym?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5062-5070
I registered as a player at Jul 3, 2007 2:45 PM, thus becoming Active and hence an eligible voter. The voting period began at Jul 3, 2007 8:53 PM when proposals were distributed. I suggest that *you* read 1950. Thanks. On 7/7/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Wooble wrote: > I vote as follows: These are ineffective, as your voting limit at the start of the voting period was zero. See Rule 1950. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5062-5070
How very Eristic of you. My Goddess wouldn't forgive me for taking attempted disenfranchisement passively. Your Eris may vary. On 7/8/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This comes across as very aggressive. It's very common in this game for people to make errors and have disputes about the application of the Rules. Please assume good faith. :) -- Eris, who usually doesn't mind a spat or two On 7/7/07, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I registered as a player at Jul 3, 2007 2:45 PM, thus becoming Active > and hence an eligible voter. The voting period began at Jul 3, 2007 > 8:53 PM when proposals were distributed. I suggest that *you* read > 1950. Thanks. > > On 7/7/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Wooble wrote: > > > > > I vote as follows: > > > > These are ineffective, as your voting limit at the start of the > > voting period was zero. See Rule 1950. > > > > > -- > Geoffrey Spear > http://www.geoffreyspear.com/ > -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PC's posture
I believe BobTHJ is on vacation without net access for the entire week; he mentioned it somewhere at Nomicapolis, where he's our Scorekeeper. On 7/10/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: P.S. Why isn't Primo judging its cases, anyway? On 7/10/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I object. I intend, without 2 objections, to change Zefram to lying > down. I intend, without objection, to make Zefram inactive. > > On 7/10/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As Primo Corporation is not judging its assigned cases, I intend to > > change it to lying down, without 2 objections. (I'll be able to do > > that under the fifth paragraph of rule 1871/11 if I'm CotC at the time, > > which seems a likely turn of events.) > > > > -zefram > > > -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5088-5097
I vote as follows: On 7/17/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 5088 Oi 1Murphy Compensate for vacant offices and speake... FOR * 4 5089 Di 2Zefram encourage meeting quorum AGAINST 5090 Di 3Zefram fix judicial rights FOR 5091 Di 2Zefram protectorate procedure FOR 5092 Dd 2Zefram lower minimum quorum to four FOR 5093 Dd 2Zefram lower minimum quorum to three FOR 5094 Dd 2Zefram lower minimum quorum to two AGAINST 5095 Dd 2Zefram lower minimum quorum to one AGAINST 5096 Dd 2Murphy Fix election quorum FOR 5097 Di 2Zefram limited VC market FOR --Wooble
DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 5080 - 5087
it
can't really work. We don't have appropriate remedies to do equity
law (it requires a valuable commodity, i.e., money). Turning the
agreement into an obligation of the rules makes breach of contract
subject to the criminal law. Contract clauses can always specify
remedies if there are appropriate ones in a particular case, and those
can be applied via inquiry CFJs, with the criminal law as a backup if
the respondent reneges on eir remedy obligations. Ultimately the
criminal law is always required to back up a specific-performance
remedy, of course.]
[]
[Part IV: transitional provisions]
[]
Revoke all patent titles of "In the Chokey", "Fugitive", and "Fugitive
from Justice".
[Punishments no longer use patent titles.]
CFJs that existed before the adoption of this proposal shall generally
continue to exist. Their continuity across the amendments made by
this proposal shall be governed by these provisions:
* "Pre-reform" refers to the state in which the rules and other game
entities were immediately before the adoption of this proposal.
* "Post-reform" refers to the state in which the rules and other game
entities will be immediately after this proposal has completed
taking effect.
* Each pre-reform CFJ continues to exist as a post-reform inquiry
case.
* Each pre-reform CFJ with a judge assigned has the same judge
assigned in its post-reform form.
* Each pre-reform CFJ with no judge assigned has no judge assigned in
its post-reform form.
* For each pre-reform CFJ with an unappealed judgement, the
post-reform inquiry case has a judgement assigned to its question on
veracity, according to this translation:
+ Pre-reform FALSE judgement corresponds to post-reform FALSE.
+ Pre-reform TRUE judgement corresponds to post-reform TRUE.
+ Any other pre-reform judgement corresponds to post-reform
UNDETERMINED.
* For each pre-reform CFJ which is dismissed (and not subsequently
reopened) without judgement, the post-reform inquiry case has a
judgement of UNDETERMINED assigned to its question on veracity.
* For each pre-reform CFJ with an incomplete appeal of judgement, the
post-reform inquiry case has its question on veracity suspended.
* For each pre-reform CFJ neither with an unappealed judgement, nor
dismissed (and not subsequently reopened) without judgement, nor
with an incomplete appeal of judgement, the post-reform inquiry case
has its question on veracity open.
* Each pre-reform appeal of anything other than a judgement is a
detail of the CFJ (post-reform inquiry case) to which it is
attached, and does not continue to exist as a distinct post-reform
entity.
* Each pre-reform appeal of a judgement continues to exist as a
post-reform appeal case regarding the assignment of that judgement
to the question on veracity in the inquiry case.
* Each pre-reform appeal of a judgement to which exactly three
appellate judges are assigned has in its post-reform form a judicial
panel assigned as judge, the members of which are the pre-reform
appellate judges.
* Each pre-reform appeal of a judgement that does not have exactly
three appellate judges assigned has in its post-reform form no judge
assigned.
* For each pre-reform appeal of a judgement in which all three
appellate judges have rendered judgement, the post-reform appeal
case has a judgement assigned to its question on disposition,
according to this translation:
+ If the pre-reform subject of the appeal was sustained, the
post-reform judgement is AFFIRM.
+ If the pre-reform appeal resulted in reversal of the subject of
the appeal, the post-reform judgement is OVERRULE with the
appropriate new judgement for the prior question.
+ If the pre-reform appeal resulted in the overturning of the
original judgement and the reassigning of the subject of the
appeal to the same judge as it previously had, the post-reform
judgement is REMAND.
+ Otherwise the post-reform judgement is REASSIGN.
* For each pre-reform appeal of a judgement in which not all three
appellate judges have rendered judgement, the post-reform appeal
case has its question on disposition open.
* Aspects of continuity not addressed by the above provisions shall be
governed by rule 1586. The above provisions shall guide the
application of rule 1586.
[Rule 1586 theoretically should achieve all of this on its own. As
it's a particularly radical redefinition of complex entities, explicit
provisions seem helpful.]
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 5087 (Ordinary, AI=1, Disinterested) by Murphy
Spell check
Amend Rule 1794 (Classes of Orders) by replacing "Oredr" with "Order".
Amend Rule 2024 (Linked Statements) by replacing "labelled" with
"labeled".
Amend Rule 2129 (Dishonor Rolls) by replacing "publically" with
"publicly".
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1713: assign Wooble
On 8/2/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Geoffrey Spear wrote: > >the rule requires "the statement" > >to be inquired into to be included and I don't think it's sufficient > >that someone could take the > >initiator's announcement and formulate a statement that maybe e wanted > >evaluated from it. > > That's a better argument than you made with your judgement. > > >Let the appeals fall where they may. > > If you'd made your new argument with the judgement then I probably > wouldn't have considered appeal. As it is, although I could be satisfied > with the judgement, I'm not happy about it resting on such a flawed > argument as we have on the record. This sort of interpretational > issue will probably come up again, so it seems important to have a > solid judgement. Anyone else up for an appeal? > > Btw, did you consider the third interpretation, that Murphy's message > was so unclear that it failed to initiate a CFJ at all? > > -zefram > I didn't find Murphy's message to be unclear in the least. I found the wording to clearly express an intent to initiate a criminal case with a specific defendant accused of violating a specific rule by performing a specific action. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1713: assign Wooble
On 8/2/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> >The phase "whether CotC Zefram violated
> >Rule 1871" can only be read to mean that what is to be determined is
> >CotC Zefram's culpability for an alleged breach of the rules,
>
> I strongly disagree with this assertion. The factual question of whether
> I violated rule 1871 is quite distinct from the legal matter of whether
> I am criminally culpable for doing so. How do you propose an inquiry
> case on the former question could have been initiated?
>
> -zefram
>
I'm not sure why anyone would want to initiate a non-criminal case to
inquire whether or not someone else violated the rules, but I suppose
if someone had a reason to want to do this e could phrase it as: "I
call for judgment on the veracity of the following statement:
{{{Zefram violated Rule 1871 when e...}}}".
I'd go so far as to argue that by not providing a specific statement
of fact the veracity of which was to be determined, Murphy's actions
in initiating CFJ 1712, if intended to initiate an Inquiry case, would
be insufficient to do so under 591; the rule requires "the statement"
to be inquired into to be included and I don't think it's sufficient
that someone could take the
initiator's announcement and formulate a statement that maybe e wanted
evaluated from it.
Let the appeals fall where they may.
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: proto: caps lock
On 8/1/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > comex wrote: > >AMEND RULE 2152 BY CHANGING ALL WORDS IN ALL CAPS TO THEIR NORMAL ENGLISH > >CAPITALIZATION, THEN AMEND EVERY OTHER RULE BY CHANGING THOSE WORDS IN THE > >SAME WAY. > > No thanks. The capitalised spelling provides a useful distinction > between the precisely-defined terms and the ordinary English words. > The use of all caps follows RFC 2119. If it is the capitals, rather > than the principle of distinction, that you object to, please propose > some other means of distinguishing the terms. > > -zefram > RFC 2119 is intended to govern technical specifications for software and communications protocols. Unless there's some intent to turn Agora into a Code Nomic I really don't see the point in trying to follow it so specifically. Specifically, defining "deprecated" in Rule 2152 just seems silly. There's no reason I can think of to allow a discouraged or "deprecated" action in a nomic at all, and I think including it shows a misunderstanding of the very important reasons for allowing such things in software. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Faction anyone ?
On 8/2/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > comex wrote: > > > On Friday 27 July 2007, Antonio Dolcetta wrote: > > >> I was wandering if anyone is interested in creating a faction. > >> Since the faction rules have been introduced no one has made one, Is > >> there any interest at all in playing factions out ? > > > I cause Agora to join B Nomic per rule 5-2. > > For reference, here's the relevant section of B Nomic's ruleset: >http://b.nomic.net/index.php/Rules#Section_5:_Factions > > 5-3 says that factions can vote, but doesn't say how. Is it > assumed that factions will define their own methods of acting > through the agency of their parties? > Rule 5-1 requires that the agreement creating a Faction explicitly describes how actions performed by the Faction will be carried out. Since Agora has no rules describing how it would perform actions in B Nomic, I'd say that the Agora Ruleset doesn't constitute an Agreement recognized by B Nomic, so Agora cannot at the moment become a B Nomic Faction. (In any case, Factions are rather limited at the moment; the only thing they can do is take away the votes of their members who are also B Nomic Players and cast them as a group. Unless Agora gave Players some sort of reward for giving eir allegiance to a hypothetical Agora Faction in B Nomic, I can see no motivation for doing so.) -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1714: assign Zefram
On 8/3/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8/3/07, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I appeal the ruling in CFJ 1714 on the grounds that the Judge > > apparently does not understand the meaning of the word "if", the > > concept of stipulating certain conditions, and perhaps formal logic in > > general. I suggest a ruling of REASSIGN. > > If you're trying to avoid an UNDECIDABLE judgement, then I think the > condition -- that the foreign nomic permits Agora to act -- isn't > specific enough. Judge Zefram is saying that it also depends on the > mechanism the foreign nomic defines for Agora's actions. So I read > the judgement here to be essentially "TRUE, assuming the foreign nomic > allows it". I'd think the wording of the statement to be evaluated would be taken to mean that it's stipulated that the foreign nomic allows it. However, I'll resubmit more explictly. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Proto-rebuttal
On 8/6/07, Peekee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Charge: violating Rule 754 by sending communication with little regularity > > > > Initiator: comex > > Firstly I am not sure what aspect of my message is offending here. I > first thought is was because the message was sent in MIME format with > spaces in the plain text part and a table in the HTML part. However, > Rule 754 deals with ambiguity of individual words, terms and phrases. > It mentions nothing on transition, formatting, encoding or even spacing. I assumed this was an equivocation on the meaning of "regularity", asserting that your messages to the public forums as a Player were not made with great frequency, having a space of years in between them. Either way, 754 doesn't require you to send communication with regularity however you define "regularity". As for the other one, it just looks like an attempt to create a paradox by asking someone to judge whether the statement "Maybe" is false. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Pseudo-judgement of CFJ 1718
On 8/9/07, Peekee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Surely it is best to resolve the issue in the safety of the discussion > forum rather than with messages that would effect the game state. Surely it would be best to have your ISP block all traffic on port 25 from your unsecured resender? -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on charge interpretation
I'm unclear as to why we need a separate CFJ on how to interpret the accusation in the first CFJ; isn't that a matter for the trial judge in the first CFJ? On 8/12/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I hereby call for judgement (of the inquiry variety), barring comex, on > the statement: in CFJ 1715, the alleged act is illegal but impossible. > Arguments: > > comex initiated CFJ 1715 by a message reading in part: > > |I initiate the following criminal cases with a defendant of Peekee, and > |request that the CotC perform linked assignments: > | > |* Peekee has violated Rule 754 by sending communication with little > |regularity. > > Rule 1504 lists the items that must be present to initiate a criminal > case: > > A criminal case CAN be initiated by any player, by announcement > which clearly identifies the defendant and specifies the action > (which may be a failure to perform another action) by which the > defendant allegedly breached the rules. > > The elements, then, are a defendant and an alleged act (the charge). > comex's message clearly identifies the defendant as Peekee, and specifies > the charge by the allegation: > > |* Peekee has violated Rule 754 by sending communication with little > |regularity. > > Rule 754, being of a definitional nature, imposes no obligations on > anyone, and so cannot be violated. Clearly Peekee has not violated > the rules here, and should be acquitted in CFJ 1715. This clarity is > convenient in considering the matter of this inquiry. The issue here > is which parts of the above-quoted sentence constitute the charge, > and hence in which manner Peekee should be acquitted. > > The first possible interpretation is that the alleged act is sending > communication with little regularity. Peekee may well have performed this > act, depending on the interpretation of "regularity". (Peekee touched > on this ambiguity in eir defence.) Supposing Peekee did indeed perform > this act, e could not be found INNOCENT. E would instead be acquitted > as UNIMPUGNED, because sending communications with little regularity is > not prohibited by the rules. > > The second possible interpretation is that the alleged act is violating > Rule 754 by sending communication with little regularity. Or, putting > it the other way round, sending communication with little regularity in > violation of Rule 754. In this case, the alleged act is by construction > illegal. The qualifier "in violation of rule N" or enclosing clause > "violating rule N by" narrows down the allegation to something that > is specifically illegal. In this case Peekee could not be UNIMPUGNED. > Indeed, e is directly impugned by the allegation that e violated rule 754. > However, as it is not possible to violate rule 754, and in particular is > impossible to violate it by sending communication with little regularity, > Peekee cannot have performed this alleged act, and so is INNOCENT. > > The overall effect of the criminal case is the same either way (an > acquittal), but rule 1504 distinguish several flavours of acquittal, > and so the interpretation of the charge is significant. I suggest that > the second interpretation is preferable, because it matches the charge > as presented by the prosecutor, whereas the first interpretation throws > away a relevant part of that sentence. > > -zefram > -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to ratify
On 8/13/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is anyone going to own up to triggering the web form?
Proto-CFJ:
{{{
A message sent by a Player to a Public Forum announcing that e
performs some action satisfies Rule 478's definition of Announcement
even if the message is sent by a means that makes it appear to be from
another Player.
}}}
If judged TRUE, would this create an 18-way fork of the game into
states where each of the 17 current Players is not a Player and 1
where it was sent by someone who's not a Player?
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1712: assign Wooble
On 8/13/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It is not yet determined with finality whether CFJ 1712 is a criminal > case or an inquiry case. CFJ 1713 established that CFJ 1712 is a criminal case and there's no pending appeal. Do you really think that the mere possibility of appeal means that CFJ 1712 is in some sort of uncertain state? You might as well argue that since the rules MIGHT some time in the future change to a state where the actions we're taking now are made retroactively ineffective that every action must create 2 agora universes, one in which the action takes place and one in which the action is retroactively make ineffective by a future rule. Is a message to agora-official considered a "public message"?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5147-5171
On 8/20/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It might be a tall-poppies thing. Let's look at the VLOP and VC > leaders, grouping partnerships with the players who most often > control them in practice: > >27 33 Zefram + Pineapple >15 23 Murphy + Human Point Two >12 9 BobTHJ + Primo >11 14 root > 9 6 Wooble > 8 2 comex > > followed by roughly half a dozen players at around 5 and 0 - and > most of that is not because of the BVLOP increase, but rather > because I've been spreading VLOP around in recent months. Indeed, I'd rather see comex get the VCs for the proposals. That said, I'd probably support an anti-plagiarism rule if someone proposed it. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5183-5189
> NUM FL AI SUBMITTER TITLE > 5183 Oi 1Murphy Dora the Explorer (who teaches children ... > 5184 Oi 1Goethe If 2.0 > 5185 Oi 1Murphy Dishonor Rolls PRESENT on all 3. > 5186 Oi 1Murphy Retroactive Long Service awards FOR * 9 > 5187 Oi 1LeviLack of Interest FOR * 9 > 5188 Oi 1LeviRegistrar Report Requirements PRESENT > 5189 Di 2Levi More MMI FOR -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
DIS: Re: BUS: advert
I have updated the NomicWiki page in question. -Ambassador Wooble On 8/30/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I intend to deputise for the ambassador in order to update the NomicWiki > page about Agora for August. > > -zefram > -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Knaves have plagued Agora for a long time
On 8/30/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Can you point me to a reference in logical or grammatical literature
> > that assigns a truth value to any imperative statement ("Stand up",
> > "Go left", "Zefram, be quiet").
>
> Oh hey, I found a reference that agrees with you:
> http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-8248(195907)26%3A3%3C172%3AIITFAL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8
>
> But I can't read the whole thing (not willing to pay $14), and the fact
> that it's a published paper suggests that (at least in 1959) it wasn't
> obvious or necessarily correct. Ain't Google neat?
>
> -Goethe
>
>
I have JSTOR access. I skimmed the whole thing, and I take from it
this bit which seems to be particularly relevant to us:
"An interesting aspect of imperatives is that although they express
the will of the speaker, their truth or falsity depends on the will of
the addressee. [...] [By how he reacts to the imperative] he makes the
imperative to be true or false."
If we accept this argument, I'd say that at the time the statement is
made it's neither true nor false, although one could argue that if the
imperative is directed towards an officer who is bound by the Rules,
the speaker in question can determine with certainty what the response
to the imperative will (or at least SHALL) be, and therefore what the
truth value of the imperative will be at some later time.
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Appellate VCs
On 8/31/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Colour problem: teal is just cyan. Wikipedia gives the hex triplet > #008080. Since VCs are defined to have colours, not just colour-themed > labels, synonyms will work. > > I compiled a list a few days ago of a set of suitably-distinct colours > with distinct letter labels: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, > Green, Heliotrope, Indigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, > Pink, aQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, > flaX, Yellow, Zinnwaldite. This should save everyone the trouble. And I think Fern and Emerald are just Green. That should save everyone else the trouble of thinking for themselves too. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Appellate VCs
On 8/31/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Geoffrey Spear wrote: > >And I think Fern and Emerald are just Green. > > They're definitely shades of green, but fern is slightly reddish > and emerald is slightly bluish. Much the same way that pink is a > shade of red. They're not the best ones on the list. Have a look at > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colours>, see if you can improve > on them. That list distinguishes Cyan and Teal, too. How are those synonyms and not your supposedly canonical list? Can a colorblind player insist that Red and Green are synonyms and that they can be used interchangeably regardless of what the rules say? After all, color is merely our perception of light, not an innate property of objects. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5199-5213
I vote as follows: > 5199 D1 2Murphy Trust-Busting FOR > 5200 O0 1Zefram no indefinite deputisation notice FOR * 9 > 5201 D1 3comex Refactor regulation AGAINST > 5202 D0 2Murphy Asset repair FOR > 5203 D1 2Murphy Easier chromatic wins AGAINST > 5204 O1 1Zefram truthfulness in registration AGAINST * 9 > 5205 D1 2Zefram allow non-player wins FOR > 5206 O1 1Murphy I feel, therefore I act FOR * 9 > 5207 D1 3Murphy Refactor elections AGAINST > 5208 D1 3Murphy Identity Crises FOR > 5209 D1 3Murphy Re-switchify chamber AGAINST > 5210 D1 2Murphy Support democracy without raising AI FOR > 5211 O1 1BobTHJ Scrub the Watcher's List FOR * 9 > 5212 D1 3Murphy Refactor ratification FOR > 5213 D1 2Murphy Disambiguate color FOR --Wooble
Re: DIS: Proto-Proposal: Lying down on the job
On 9/6/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ed Murphy wrote: > >"When the CotC recuses a judge with cause, e CAN flip that player's > >posture to supine by announcement." > > Doesn't say when e can do so. The first clause is "when the CotC recuses a judge with cause"; I'd assume that's when e can do so, at the time of recusing the judge. Changing the "CAN" to "CAN and SHALL" would preserve the intent of the original proto better though, IMO. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
DIS: Re: BUS: Poll on CFJ 1741
On 9/11/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So I'm going to poll the players and watchers: Upon first seeing > Peekee's message, were you able to understand it within a reasonable > amount of effort? If so, was a knowledge of HTML required? I'm using Gmail too, so like you and BobTHJ I couldn't even see the attempted obfuscation without using the "Show original" option. I'd have to agree that it's a lot more likely that a given Player would be able to read an HTML message than one in an arbitrary MIME type. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: We play on the internet after all
On 9/11/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The only textual file format that is reliably legible > is text/plain with strict ASCII. We have done very well by keeping our > game documents in this format. I'd favour legislation requiring it. I'd definitely support that. I can't think of a situation where someone capable of communicating by email in English would *need* to communicate in anything but plain ASCII text. There may be some edge cases out there but I'd say in the vast majority of circumstances this hypothetical rule would only be violated by people who are deliberately trying to be difficult. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: We play on the internet after all
On 9/11/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wooble wrote: > > > On 9/11/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The only textual file format that is reliably legible > >> is text/plain with strict ASCII. We have done very well by keeping our > >> game documents in this format. I'd favour legislation requiring it. > > > > I'd definitely support that. > > > > I can't think of a situation where someone capable of communicating by > > email in English would *need* to communicate in anything but plain > > ASCII text. There may be some edge cases out there but I'd say in the > > vast majority of circumstances this hypothetical rule would only be > > violated by people who are deliberately trying to be difficult. > > I agree wrt non-strict-ASCII, but disagree wrt text/plain versus > text/html; a great many people read and write text/html (with or > without a text/plain alternative included) without being consciously > aware of it, thanks to mail software glossing over the details. If > we're going to require text/plain only, then the report listing the > Fora should also mention this requirement, and include a link to > something like http://www.expita.com/nomime.html that explains how to > bring one's mail software into compliance. That's a good point; I think any proposal on the matter should deal more with how the actual content of the message is presented rather than its Content-Type. I don't think anyone has a problem with a bunch of tags surrounding the text people send as long as the actual text of the messages that need to be interpreted under the rules is completely clear without needing translation/transliteration. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Inactivity
On 9/17/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I tried to do so, but was not successful.
>
> I hereby submit the following proposal:
>
> Lie Down
> AI: 1
> {
> BobTHJ's posture is flipped to Supine.
> }
You're currently sitting; you can flip your posture to supine without
a proposal right now.
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1711a: assign BobTHJ, comex, root
On 9/17/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm republishing this for the new judge assignment in case 1711a, and > I intend to cause the panel of BobTHJ, Wooble, and myself to judge > REMAND with these arguments, with the consent of BobTHJ and Wooble. I consent to having the panel judge REMAND with the abovementioned arguments.
Re: DIS: Proto: Variables
On 9/17/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Zefram wrote: > > > It seems to me that switches are a special case of your variable concept, > > where the restricting type is an enumeration. > > It doesn't have to be. A rule could define a switch's valid values > as "all real numbers from 0 (default) to 1, inclusive", for instance. It could but that would break the switch metaphor IMO. I'd suggest calling such a thing a "dial". Then again personally I think a "switch" should have exactly two possible values. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Proto: Variables
On 9/17/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Geoffrey Spear wrote: > >Then again personally I think a > >"switch" should have exactly two possible values. > > To match the hardware, presumably? > > http://www.maplin.co.uk/module.aspx?moduleno=98092 Well if I could legislate that people making such things had to call them something else I would. I suspect that would involve persuading a lot more people than stopping continuously-variable "switches" from showing up in Agora, though. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Proto: Variables
On 9/18/07, Peekee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Quoting Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > root wrote: > > > >> On 9/17/07, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> On 9/17/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> Zefram wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> It seems to me that switches are a special case of your variable > >>>>> concept, > >>>>> where the restricting type is an enumeration. > >>>> It doesn't have to be. A rule could define a switch's valid values > >>>> as "all real numbers from 0 (default) to 1, inclusive", for instance. > >>> It could but that would break the switch metaphor IMO. I'd suggest > >>> calling such a thing a "dial". Then again personally I think a > >>> "switch" should have exactly two possible values. > >> > >> Interesting point. This suggests to me that what we really ought to > >> do is to split switches into two disjoint components: a variable to > >> hold values, and a switch (or dial, or whatever we want to call it) > >> that exists purely as a mechanism for changing its variable's value. > > > > This sheds some new light on my CotC DB maintenance, e.g. > > update players set active = 'f' where name = 'Quazie' > > > > What other game mechanisms can we re-cast using a SQL metaphor? > > All of them? H anyone ever done a pure programing/sql nomic? SQL-specific? Not that I'm aware of from looking through nomic.net. CodeNomics have certainly be done and there are a few out there at the moment, although none of the ones I've seen since perlnomic died due to hosting issues have had much activity. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5225-5229
I vote as follows: > 5225 O1 1Goddess Er Lying down on the job III FOR * 9 > 5226 O1 1BobTHJ Lie Down PRESENT > 5227 O1 1Peekee Get some colors. AGAINST * 9 > 5228 O0 1rootCitizenship cleansing PRESENT > 5229 D1 3rootEarly announcement of voting options FOR --Wooble
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1741: assign root
On 9/19/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/18/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I intend, with 2 support, to call for the appeal of CFJ 1741. > > > I vote OBJECT Not to the proper forum, but this would be ineffective in any case since an appeal can be brought with 2 support and doesn't require Agoran Consent; objections are irrelevant. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1741: assign root
On 9/20/07, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've been confused by this recently. The closest thing to defining the phrase > 'with 2 support' is in rule 2124 where With N Supporters is defined. This > seems > related to a Dependent Action and can be voted on (both SUPPORT and OBJECT). > > Does this make it a dependent action? or does it need to explictly say? It is a dependent action, and it's true that as such there's an Agoran Decision initiated on which players can vote SUPPORT or OPPOSE. However, if the action can be done with 2 support, the result of the decision on whether to do it is APPROVED if there are 2 or more supports even if there are positive infinity opposes. Frankly I think the dependent action process has become a bit too generalized. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1740: assign Goddess Eris
On 9/21/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/21/07, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Sep 21, 2007, at 1:31 AM, Taral wrote: > > > > > > (People in the chokey really shouldn't be able to judge cases.) > > > > Proto (AI=2): > > > > Amend R1504 by appending to the paragraph starting "CHOKEY", the following > > sentence: > > > > A player is ineligible to judge CFJs while e is in the chokey. > > Wouldn't P5225 cover the cases for which this really matters? That depends if you think that BobTHJ specifically should be forbidden from judging cases while in the chokey due to eir judicial misconduct or if any player in the chokey including those convicted of behavior that has nothing to do with eir obligations as judge should be forbidden from being a judge. In any case 5225 doesn't prevent a judge who's recused for cause from simply flipping eir posture back to sitting. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1745: remanded to Wooble
> Statement: It is possible for a judicial case to have more than one >subclass. I judge IRRELEVANT. The veracity of the statement is not relevant to the game. --Wooble
DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Caveat suffragor
On 9/26/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Proto-Proposal: Caveat suffragor > (AI = 3, please) > > Amend Rule 683 (Voting on Agoran Decisions) by replacing this text: > >Among the otherwise-valid votes on an Agoran decision, only the >first N submitted by each entity are valid, where N is the >entity's voting limit on that decision. > > with this text: > >Among the otherwise-valid votes on an Agoran decision: > > a) The first N votes submitted by each entity are protected, > where N is the entity's voting limit on that decision. > > b) Any other votes are unprotected. The vote collector CAN > invalidate or change an unprotected vote by announcement > when e resolves the decision. > > c) If an entity makes a reasonable effort to notify the vote > collector which of eir votes e believes will be unprotected, > then the vote collector SHALL invalidate all of that entity's > unprotected votes. Is it just me, or wouldn't this give the vote collector the power to allow a voter to cast more valid, counted votes than e has the right to? Sounds like a scam to me. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Caveat suffragor
On 9/27/07, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is it just me, or wouldn't this give the vote collector the power to > allow a voter to cast more valid, counted votes than e has the right > to? Sounds like a scam to me. Also, is it just me or does anyone else's mail client thread things horribly when the title changes to start with "DIS" instead of "BUS" therefore making the earlier replies not show up with what they're replying to? I think I need to start reading my email backwards or something. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
DIS: Re: BUS: Here and Gone Again: a Registrar's Report
On 9/27/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Human Point Twoc/o Murphy 29 Apr 07 A Murphy left the Human Point Two partnership at the time e deregistered. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Here and Gone Again: a Registrar's Report
On 9/27/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/27/07, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/27/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Human Point Twoc/o Murphy 29 Apr 07 A > > > > Murphy left the Human Point Two partnership at the time e deregistered. > > Who are the current members? Wouldn't it be nice if a partnership's basis couldn't be secret? As I read the rules, you're obligated to provide contact information for Human Point Two in your report but no one is obligated to give you that information. Nice. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ
On 9/28/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Instead, I choose to assume > that the entered judgement of IRRELEVANT is appropriate for the reason > that nobody has ever attempted to create such a case. Now somebody > has. That's true. I'd probably not judge IRRELEVANT on the same inquiry put forth now that you've attempted to create such a case. Of course, if you didn't in fact create such a case then the inquiry in question probably isn't all that much more relevant, and a better inquiry would be into whether such a case can, in fact, be created by announcement. Since the appeal hinged on the quite correct assertion that we can, in fact, break the game state in any way we want to through passing proposals, any statement of the form "X is possible" is probably superficially true. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1755: assign Wooble
On 9/28/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Statement: message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> had the effect of >resolving the Agoran decision on proposals 5224 I judge TRUE. I'm unable to decide from the rule whether a former Assessor should or should not remain the vote collector for Agoran decisions initiated before the office change hands. However, in this case the former Assessor deregistered before the decisions were initiated. I hold that Rule 1698's protection of the proposal system means that the vote collector for a vote on proposals must actually be bound by Rule 208's requirement that e resolve the decisons in the proper fashion. Since Murphy ceased to be bound by the rules when e deregistered than e must necessarily have ceased to be the vote collector for these decisions if e still was up until that point. Since Rule 208 requires that an Agoran decision have exactly one vote collector and Rule 2137 makes the Assessor the default vote collector, the AFO must have become the vote collector either when e became Assessor or when Murphy ceased to be vote collector. I will refrain from issuing an opinion regarding at which of these times the AFO actually became the vote collector for the decisions in question, as it's irrelevant. E was the vote collector at the time e was cased to publish the message resolving the decisions, ergo they were resolved with that message. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1801: assign comex
On Nov 19, 2007 1:47 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Interesting distinction. What do Factions do? At the moment, a Faction can just act as a proxy, casting votes for any Player who has given the Faction eir allegiance. Except as a way to allow players to vote without actually paying attention to the ballots, they're pretty much worthless. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Protective Alliance
On Nov 19, 2007 6:05 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Where's the current ruleset for Nomicapolis, and what is your role in > them, Wooble? The current ruleset can be found at http://nomicapolis.net/wiki/Current_ruleset My role is simply as a Player. > And are you trying to drag someone else into this growing war? Certainly not. And I can assure you I have no intention of trying to drag ECMAnomic into a war, either. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
DIS: Re: BUS: I'm a royal idiot.
On Nov 24, 2007 8:01 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I tried making Agora a B Nomic faction with Agoran consent, and went ahead and > tried making it a B Nomic player instead. So, I'm an idiot. > > Let's do this right. > > With Agoran Consent, I intend to make Agora be a player in B Nomic. > > Let's see how B Nomic handles *two* player/factions. :) > > I vote SUPPORT on this, BTW. > I vote OBJECT. --Wooble -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1799: result UNDECIDABLE
On Nov 29, 2007 1:09 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here's Dictionary.com's definition: > > 1. words or language having little or no sense or meaning. >1. Words or signs having no intelligible meaning: a message that > was nonsense until decoded. These are the only relevant definitions, since the others have nothing to do with words, language, or meaning. If a word has meaning, it's not nonsense. > I guess it all depends on how you interpret it. When I called nkep > nonsensical in my judgment, I meant it was a silly, intelligible word. > However, it is a word that could very well describe an action. "intelligible" could just as well be called a "silly, intelligible word". That "ligib" sound is just ridiculous. Still, as long as it means something in a given context (in this case, the English language; in our hypothetical case where "nkep" has a game-defined meaning, the game) it's not, by definition, nonsense. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Re: [s-b] Proposal Withdrawal and Revision
On Nov 30, 2007 12:10 AM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We surrendered? > > . . . I propose war. . . And I wonder if we can make him a knave. > BobTHJ surrendered, having received Agoran Consent to do so when e badly worded his message seeking such consent. Eir message to B surrendering was actually worded completely unambiguously and I can't image where some B Players got the idea that eir surrender was on behalf of anyone but emself. Eir subsequent attempt to get Agoran Consent for Agora itself to surrender failed quite badly. I wonder if I can get B to adopt a Prisoner of War rule to deal with Players who have surrendered... --Wooble
DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1807a: assign Eris, Goethe, Wooble
On Nov 30, 2007 12:06 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1806a Should be http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1807a -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
DIS: Re: OFF: [Scorekeepor] Scoreboard correction.
On Nov 30, 2007 11:52 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wooble 3 > BobTHJ 1 Both BobTHJ and I deregistered subsequent to earning our points. Rule 2166 says they were destroyed at the time of deregistration, since they were no longer owned by entities capable of owning points. --Wooble -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Proto: Digits
On Dec 2, 2007 6:22 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Josiah Worcester wrote: > >Clearly, we should establish a C interpreter into Agora. :p > > C is too tied to machine architecture for our purposes. Much better to > use a programming language that has no inherent connection to machine > architecture at all, most likely a functional one or a nearly-functional > Lisp. C's ?: operator is precisely equivalent to Lisp's "if" macro. > > -zefram > I'd prefer Smalltalk. Although I suppose that would work better for B, where everything in the game is already defined as an Object. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5335-5344
On Dec 1, 2007 11:35 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wooble wrote: > > >> 5339 D0 2Murphy Andre's degree > > AGAINST [Suber's Rule 211 solves this paradox, contrary to the thesis' > > assertion that no change to the rules could deal with it effectively] > > Disagree. Suber's Rule 211 only addresses M-M and I-I > conflicts. Andre's thesis examines the analogue of Suber's > Rule 110 (an I rule saying that M-I is always won by I), and > hypothesizes a M rule saying that M-I is always won by M. I wasn't talking about the precedence based on mutability; Rule 211 specifically solves all such possible paradoxes by making all such chains of claims of precedence moot by giving precedence explicitly to the rule with the lowest ordinal number in cases where rules claim precedence over one another. If a rule with a number higher than 110 conflicts with 110 and 110 says that it takes precedence, it does. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: judicial status
On Dec 3, 2007 1:05 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My action was nonsense, but Fookiemyartug recognized that > nonsense and caused the win. Except that there's no reason to think that Fookiemyartug can cause a win in Agora. Let me introduce you to my private contract that says that anyone who posts a message to agora-business and signs it "BobTHJ" pledges their unquestioning loyalty to the contract, deregisters from any nomics they may be a Player in, and pledges to send all of their money to me in unmarked bills. You're just as bound by that contract as Agora is by the Fookiemyartug contract, i.e., not at all. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: judicial status
On Dec 3, 2007 2:45 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Dec 3, 2007 11:36 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Dec 3, 2007 11:31 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Let me introduce you to my private contract that says that anyone who > > > posts a message to agora-business and signs it "BobTHJ" pledges their > > > unquestioning loyalty to the contract, deregisters from any nomics > > > they may be a Player in, and pledges to send all of their money to me > > > in unmarked bills. You're just as bound by that contract as Agora is > > > by the Fookiemyartug contract, i.e., not at all. > > > > Compare CFJ 1455. > > > > -root > > > My counterargument is that Fookiemyartug did not attempt to bind > anyone under its contract or arbitrarily award a win. It only did so > in response to Agora's action which was taken with Agoran Consent. > Agora, in effect, authorized the win. Proto-action: I intend, with Agoran Consent, to award myself a Win. Can I create such a possible dependent action out of thin air without using a Proposal? -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1819: assign Wooble
On Dec 4, 2007 10:42 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The presence of R2125(a) would indicate that there is a class of > regulated action which is not prohibited. R101(ii) grants permission > to players to take actions which are not regulated. However, it does > not forbid players from taking actions which are regulated. R2172 > provides a mechanism for a player to act on behalf of Agora as a > whole. This action, by definition, must come with the consent of the > players of Agora. Since Agora is not a player, there is no reason why > Agora (using R2172) can not perform a regulated action. See R1688. Agora has 0 power (by default), and thus cannot make changes where a mechanism for those changes is defined in an instrument with a power greater than 0 (which would be any instrument, by definition). -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJs 1813-1814: assign Goethe
On Dec 6, 2007 1:32 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > > "To decrease a value by -1" cannot be reasonably interpreted to mean > > the same thing as "to increase a value by 1". > > Obviously, it can. I just did. If you don't like the result, provide > something that I haven't directly refuted already, otherwise have at > least a little respect for the fact that it Wasn't Your Turn to Judge. The fact that you interpreted it as such does not make it obvious that such an interpretation is reasonable. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJs 1813-1814: assign Goethe
On Dec 6, 2007 1:49 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 6, 2007 11:42 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The fact that you interpreted it as such does not make it obvious that > > such an interpretation is reasonable. > > That's presumably why e wrote more than just "I choose interpretation > X." In my opinion, this is one of the most balanced and > well-thought-out judgements we've had in quite a while. And it may be the case that no 2 players will agree with me and support my appeal, or that a panel will find this to be a reasonable interpretation. Personally, I don't feel that R754 "encourages us to use mathematical abstractions", rather it tells us quite clearly to use the meaning of a term primarily used in a mathematical context in the way that it's actually used, by real mathematicians, in that context. I don't believe that taking a term and allowing it to be defined as having a meaning that some mathematician could, theoretically, decide to use for the term is within the spirit of R754, which aims to promote regularity of communication rather than creative interpretation of word meaning by activist judges. Indeed, if hours of research could only find 1 example of this type of usage of a term and even that usage wouldn't apply in this case I'd say it's been pretty well established that in a mathematical context the term decrease isn't used to mean anything but to make a value less than it is. I haven't spent hours on researching this (obviously) and my abilities for finding information outside of the health sciences are undeveloped at best, but a few cursory searches of academic mathematics databases are fruitless in finding any such usage. --Wooble
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJs 1813-1814: assign Goethe
On Dec 6, 2007 2:15 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Arguing that the AFO's VVLOP was not increased wouldn't change the > judgement of FALSE. That's true, but it seems to be me that it's game custom to treat the reasoning behind judgments as precedent for future judgments, even though, in my opinion, a strict reading of the rules shows that only the actual judgment itself should guide future play and future judgments. If I'm completely incorrect in this assumption about game custom, forgive me and join me in chastising whomever reads the judgments in your recent CFJs and tries to appeal them on the grounds that they don't take into account the reasoning given in CFJ1813. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1829: assign Wooble
On Dec 9, 2007 6:28 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Statement: The Accountor is an office.
I judge FALSE.
Reasoning:
{{
While Rule 2126, listing the Accountor in a list prefixed by "the
following officers:" would seem to implicitly state that there must be
an officer known as the Accountor, this does not meet the standard of
Rule 1006, which requires that a role must be defined as "an office"
by the rules. While 1006 states that the holder of an office is an
officer, it does not follow that every "officer" necessarily has an
office implicitly defined so that he might hold it.
}}
--Priest Wooble of the People's Front for Using the Format and
Pronouns to Which I Am Accustomed.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A Message from B Nomic
On Dec 10, 2007 9:14 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote: > > > As Agoran Ambassador and Self-Proclaimed Agoran Spy, I feel it is my duty to > > transmit the following message from B Nomic: > > jt jo b Tubuf pg Fnfshfodz! Buubdl opx! Uijt > > nfttbhf xbt cspvhiu up zpv cz Bncbttbeps Iptf. > > > > That will be all. > > I'm tempted to CFJ on the truthfulness of representing this as "from B Nomic", > unless I missed something in that mailing list... -Goethe Gratuitous pre-emptive argument: B's Ambassador was ordered by another Player to send that message on behalf of B, and no one declared the action of issuing that order Invalid, so it's "valid in every way, even if it is in contradiction to the rules." Isn't explicitly legislating "I say I do, therefore I do" frickin' wonderful? -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
DIS: Re: BUS: Brainfuck Golf, Hole #1
On Dec 10, 2007 1:21 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't think there's any need to wait on contestification or my > intended amendment to go through, so let's get started. > > We'll begin relatively simple: the first task for Brainfuck Golf is > to print out all the prime numbers (and only the prime numbers) less > than 256, delimited by newlines, and then terminate. > > This can be done any way you prefer: computing the primes on the fly, > storing a list in the code, etc. Numbers may be written out in > binary, octal, decimal, or hexadecimal as preferred, as long as the > program consistently uses a single system. The program must not > accept any input. Do you have a preferred newline format? Is the ASCII LF character sufficient rather than a CR LF? -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1830a: assign Goddess Eris, root, Wooble
On Dec 11, 2007 1:30 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 12/11/07, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > With the consent of H. Goddess Eris and H. root, I intend to have the > > panel judge OVERRULE with a replacement judgement of IRRELEVANT, > > Is there a reason you prefer this to REMAND with instructions? To spare everyone from more unnecessary consideration of the case? I suppose it's a philosophical question of what the purpose of an appeals panels should be. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Brainfuck Golf, Hole #1
On Dec 11, 2007 6:18 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Monday 10 December 2007, Ian Kelly wrote: > > We'll begin relatively simple: the first task for Brainfuck Golf is > > to print out all the prime numbers (and only the prime numbers) less > > than 256, delimited by newlines, and then terminate. > > > So, I'm a brainfuck newbie. I've made a program to store the primes in > memory (not print them) that is 267 valid characters long. But I wouldn't > be surprised if someone else has made a much shorter implementation; and I > bet formatting the numbers will add quite a bit to the character count. > Thoughts? Can I hear some other peoples' character counts? I got mine down to 610 (including printing). I knew nothing about Brainfuck until 5 minutes before I started, and next to nothing about UTMs in general since the brain cells that stored that information were killed off at least 10 years ago. I didn't try to figure out how to actually go about computing primes; how to do any sort of useful conditional statements was beyond me (since submitting my program I read up a bit on brainfuck algorithms and should probably be better equipped for the next task, but it would have felt like cheating to use other people's code and insight for the contest, even though that's a big part of real world coding; I mean, why not just submit someone else's code that already computes primes, since it's not exactly a novel task and there are undoubtedly tons of Googleable solutions to the problem out there already). I didn't quite store the primes in memory (which now looks like it might have made for a smaller program), instead I wrote code to print each one individually, using just 2 memory locations for digits and 1 for the NL character, incrementing or decrementing each of the 2 digits and switching between them in what seemed, purely by intuition, to be the most efficient way. I have to say that while I'm nowhere close to the leaders in the contest, the whole thing was a fun exercise, and had the added benefit of making my perl code look very readable by comparison. --Wooble -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Brainfuck Golf, Hole #1
On Dec 12, 2007 11:36 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wooble wrote: > > > I didn't try to figure out how to actually go about computing primes; > > how to do any sort of useful conditional statements was beyond me > > (since submitting my program I read up a bit on brainfuck algorithms > > and should probably be better equipped for the next task, but it would > > have felt like cheating to use other people's code and insight for the > > contest, even though that's a big part of real world coding; I mean, > > why not just submit someone else's code that already computes primes, > > since it's not exactly a novel task and there are undoubtedly tons of > > Googleable solutions to the problem out there already). > > I'd heard of BF before, but this was my first time actually trying to > write a program in it. I did yoink Wikipedia's example of how to > implement a loop. > > > I didn't > > quite store the primes in memory (which now looks like it might have > > made for a smaller program), instead I wrote code to print each one > > individually, using just 2 memory locations for digits and 1 for the > > NL character, incrementing or decrementing each of the 2 digits and > > switching between them in what seemed, purely by intuition, to be the > > most efficient way. > > I did much the same thing, but with more locations, more movement and > less **crementing. Further optimization is the sort of thing that Mel > the Real Programmer might have done to relax. I came very close to writing a perl program that was going to figure out for me the optimal steps to take to do things this way, which also seemed a bit like cheating. Then I briefly toyed with the notion of writing a Brainfuck program to help figure out how to best write the other program, but that just gave me a headache. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fantasy Rules Contest, take three
I've usually already read the messages being replied to, and don't re-read them in the quoted message. My mail client also collapses all the quoted stuff since it's displayed immediately above the new message in the previous message. Again, blame Gmail. On Dec 12, 2007 8:26 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -zefram > > film showed scenes in rev... no wait, they did that one. > Imagine if a novel had the chapters printed in reverse order. Or if a > > with having to repeatedly jump backwards. > really need to be read in chronological order. The same issue arises > the newest post first, but as themes are discussed in several posts they > I have the same problem with blogs. They're almost always presented with > > the usual kind of top-posting. > bottom-to-top, and I'm sure you'll agree it's much more readable than > time you reach one. This message, for comparison, is *consistently* > know about the section boundaries, and jump backward two sections each > representations, the nuxi problem. To comprehend the whole you have to > must still be read top-to-bottom. It's like mixed-endian numeric > sequence must be read bottom-to-top, but each individual section > picks up a chain of previous top-posted quotations, is that the overall > The problem with top-posting as it is usually done, especially when it > I read top-to-bottom or bottom-to-top, as long as it's consistent. > what's really annoying about it. I don't really strongly mind whether > Actually, top-posting is usually done in an inconsistent way, and that's > > (getting the last one wrong) tend to get all three wrong. > corresponding quoted text versus putting it below. People who top-post > versus interspersing it with quotation; and putting new text above the > quoting only what's necessary; putting all of the new text in one place > orthogonal issues here: quoting the entire previous message versus > is indeed an annoying habit in its own right. There are really three > I disagree about this ordering of annoyingness, but unselective quoting > > >It's less annoying than quoting the entire message and then bottom-posting :D > comex wrote: > -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
DIS: Re: OFF: [Scorekeepor] Scoreboard
On Dec 14, 2007 9:06 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wooble 3 > Zefram 9 > BobTHJ 1 I believe that BobTHJ and I lost our points upon deregistering and are both at 0. --Wooble
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Winnation
On Dec 24, 2007 2:42 PM, Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 24, 2007 2:21 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > pikhq wrote: > > > > > Common sense dictates that, when you spend something, you have also lost > > > it. > > > The rules do not say otherwise, so common sense prevails. > > > This whole case is centered around whether or not "to spend" is > > > sufficiently > > > similar to "to lose" to allow the VC loss to be waived. > > > I invite the judge (to be assigned) to take this into account. > > > > The common-sense definition of "to spend" implies that you have the > > money being spent. > > I submit for evidence that, especially during this season, it is > common for people to routinely spend things they do not have. Only through an agreement that allows them to borrow the thing they wish to spend so they may spend it. No procedure to borrow VCs exists in Agora. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Proto: Synaesthesia
On Dec 26, 2007 3:52 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Change the title of Rule 2176 to "Notes", and amend it to read: > >Notes are a class of assets. Ownership of Marks is restricted >to players. s/Marks/Notes/ -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [s-b] [s-d] Anti-Proposal: B-Agora Swap
On Jan 2, 2008 11:27 AM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 January 2008 05:14:38 Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> > On Jan 1, 2008 11:48 PM, Jamie Dallaire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hmmm, I don't think it's a proposal. Plus, even if it passes, the list of
> > > players as well as everything about the game of B (even its name, that's a
> > > rule!) will be transported to Agora. And vice versa. In other words, no
> real
> > > effect?
> >
> > Only if it passes in both nomics. If it passes in only one of them,
> > that one ceases to exist, and pikhq fulfills his new years resolution
> > of destroying B Nomic.
> >
> > I submit the following proposal, entitled "Stop it, Traitor":
> >
> > {{
> > Create a new rule entitled "Treason" with the following text:
> >
> > {{{
> > The External Force known as Josiah Worcester cannot become a Player,
> > nor can any External Force controlled by the person known as Josiah
> > Worcester. If he is a Player, he immediately ceases to be a Player.
> > }}}
> > }}
> >
>
> I retract my proposal on Agora-B swapping. I humbly submit that Agora bring
> back the rule on knaves.
>
Very well; I retract "Stop it, Traitor".
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nonpublic deregistrations
On Jan 2, 2008 6:10 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I withdraw my previous proposal titled "Public Partnerships III" and
> submit the following proposal also titled "Public Partnerships III"
> (AI=1,II=0):
> {
> Amend rule 2144 by removing this text:
> If a registered partnership is not a public contract, it can be
> degregistered with Support.
> }
s/degregistered/deregistered/
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nonpublic deregistrations
On Jan 3, 2008 9:26 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Geoffrey Spear wrote: > >s/degregistered/deregistered/ > > No, the rule text actually says "degregistered". Ah. The Wooble Private Partnership gregisters and adds "deregister" in all its forms to its spellchecker to avoid making such a mistake in its own proposals. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: [Brainfuck Golf] Preview of Hole #2
On Jan 3, 2008 2:08 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > > I just mean that whenever it's at its starting position it must not > > move left. It's free to move right as much as it wants, move back to > > the left as long as it doesn't pass its starting position, and > > terminate wherever it happens to be at. > > heh, I misparsed that as "never left its starting position". ok. -G. Mel the Real Programmer, upon misparsing that sentence, would have written the program using only one byte of memory and still would have submitted the shortest program. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: registration
On Jan 8, 2008 3:11 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > > Acting on behalf of my daughter, a minor, I register Zoë Spear using > > the nickname "Wooblette". > > I thought about that, was wavering between the "I have legal rights on > my daughter's behalf" and "minors can't sign contracts." Ah, but (at least in my jurisdiction), parents can enter their children into contracts. Without their knowledge or consent. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nominations
On Jan 11, 2008 12:46 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/11/08, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This would change if I were CotC again, as the database would drive > > the carrying-out-of-duties rather than the other way round. > > I will probably submit a conditional vote like: > - If at least one COMEX vote has been cast, I vote COMEX; otherwise, I > vote MURPHY > > > It was relocated once before (from Eris's server to mine), but it > > took a good bit of head-scratching. I could give you a shell account, > > but then you'd be cut off whenever my server's net connection decided > > to flake out for a while. (The cfj.qoid.us mirror is a good workaround > > for that problem.) > > What sort of database is it? > > > > - support automated CFJ submission to the extent that is feasible and > > > that is acceptable to Agora > > > > Should require username+password to block spambots. > > What I'm wondering is whether the advantage of having CFJs assigned > immediately (which speeds up the process and works if the CotC is > unavailable) outweighs the hassle of having to go to a webform instead > of just sending a reply. Has this been done before? > The ideal system would have the database subscribed to agora-business with a parser that can identify messages that are calling CFJs, but I imagine the hassle of creating a reasonably accurate parser and/or requiring CFJs to be submitted in a strict machine-readable format would probably outweigh the advantages. I see from the B Nomic archives that there was a period when email messages were parsed for game actions, though, and from what I can tell it seems to have worked reasonably well. I'd thought you were around back then but I see now that you joined immediately after the Second Era ended when the server that did the parsing died a horrible death. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
DIS: Re: BUS: Brainfuck Golf Hole #2
I think this problem would've been a lot easier had I not decided to make the actual brainfuck coding easier by writing a debugger for the Mac, which involved remembering how to code in Objective C, learning Apple's CoreData API that I'd never used before (which was entirely unnecessary for this task but it should make my next Mac application easier to write), and then ended up writing the last 1/4 of my brainfuck code on a windows machine using emacs, so my debugger did me absolutely no good. I scored 6945, although I'm absolutely certain that if the deadline wasn't today I could've significantly cut that down by the simplest of optimization. --Wooble
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Fix Rule 1586
On Jan 17, 2008 8:19 AM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 16, 2008 11:49 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Iammars wrote: > > > > > On Jan 16, 2008 10:37 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 16, 2008 10:13 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > T > > > What is with these blatantly unwrapped proposals?? > > > > > Huh? > > > > Some of us are old-school to varying degrees. You should consider > > using plaintext and a limited column width (I think mine defaults > > to 72) when posting to the Agoran lists, otherwise your messages > > will look rather ugly on some screens. > > > > Yeah, I'm trying to find where that setting is in g-mail. Gmail does that automatically as far as I can tell, as long as you don't select "Rich formatting". I certainly have always typed paragraphs all on one line and they get split to a 72-character width when they're sending. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Proto-notification of Recognition of Canada
On Jan 19, 2008 4:46 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear Canadian Embassy, > > This message is being sent to you in order to inform you of occurances in a > game of Nomic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic), called Agora > (http://agoranomic.org/). By Agora's ruleset, I am obligated to inform you > that Agora has recognized Canada as a fellow Nomic with Neutral recognition > status. > > Sincerely, > Josiah "pikhq" Worcester > Ambassador of Agora > Why would you contact one of their embassies, which are by definition in existence to promote their relations with another government, with which Agora has no affiliation? The office of the Prime Minister or perhaps the Foreign Ministry would surely be more appropriate. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
On Jan 23, 2008 6:04 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Proposal: Generalize Game Actions (AI=3) > > Create a new Rule, at Power=4, titled "Dictator", with the text: > comex CAN and may at any time by announcement make any explicit > change whatsoever to the gamestate, including but not limited to > enacting, repealing, or amending a rule. > > This rule takes precedence over all other rules. > > [Requesting comments on whether or not this has a bug.] > You misspelled "Wooble" as "comex". Other than that I'd be happy to vote for it. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Watcher
On Jan 25, 2008 2:47 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Zefram wrote: > > > Ed Murphy wrote: > >> CFJ 1659 found that even a contract can't override an explicit rule > >> definition, much less a long-standing but still unlegislated custom. > > > > And as a result we amended the rule that led to that judgement. > > Contextual modifications now can override rule definitions. > > That would be the "by default" clause in 754(2), yes? It's still > unclear whether unofficial custom suffices to trigger that, though. I think a system where unofficial custom can override something explicitly defined in the Rules is almost completely unworkable, not to mention a huge burden to new players. Who defines what exactly is "custom"? If I start posting messages claiming a copy-and-pasted line from a ballot followed by the word "AGAINST" is a synonym for "I deregister", should attempts to vote against a proposal be taken as deregistrations? What if I post these messages frequently for a period of a few months? What if several more players join me in doing so? What's the threshold for people repeatedly using a term in one way before it's "custom" and therefore able to override a rule? -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Watcher
On Jan 24, 2008 10:53 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thursday 24 January 2008 20:51:39 Ian Kelly wrote: > > On Jan 24, 2008 8:47 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I request to be registered as a "watcher". > > > If the above causes me to be registered as a player, then I switch my > > > posture to Leaning. > > > > R869 is pretty clear on the definition of "to be registered", so I'm > > interpreting this as a successful registration as a player. > > > > -root > > As am I. I'm guessing that Ben Caplan here wants to be known as 'watcher'. If anything, he requested to be known as 'a "watcher"'. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
Re: DIS: Proto: Quorum Busting
On Jan 29, 2008 2:43 AM, Jeremy Koo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > After review, it seems I suffered from a slight misunderstanding of > the rules. Thank you all for your comments. It is my intent, > actually, to just have this apply to proposals. In addition, I > believe votes of PRESENT (which at first glance I did not think was a > valid option) should count toward quorum as well. Therefore I suggest > the following proto-proposal: > > Proto-proposal: Quorum Busting (AI = 3, please) > > Amend rule 955 by amending paragraph (b) to read: > > (b) If the decision is whether to adopt a proposal, then the voting > index is the ratio of the strength of FOR to the strength of AGAINST. > If the sum of distinct voters who submitted valid ballots of FOR and > PRESENT is less than quorum, then the outcome is FAILED QUORUM, > regardless of the remainder of this rule. If the voting index is > greater than 1, and greater than or equal to the decision's adoption > index, then the outcome is ADOPTED; otherwise, the outcome is > REJECTED. The purpose of a quorum is to ensure that a decision has been considered by a sufficiently representative cross section of eligible voters. Refusing to vote for a proposal that clearly has the support of the majority of people who have considered it in order to cause it to fail to reach quorum is a despicable action that shouldn't be encouraged let alone legislated. There was a proposal a while back to punish eligible voters for failing to vote any time quorum is not met, and while I don't think that's entirely reasonable I'd be happy to support a proposal to automatically enter PRESENT votes for any voter who votes on some proposals on a given ballot but not on all of them. --Wooble
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1886 assigned to Zefram
On Jan 29, 2008 12:00 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 29, 2008 9:31 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here I am attempting to use the normal english definition of the word > > 'deregister'. Note that R869 does not define this word. It defines "to > > deregister" and "to be deregistered". > > Nonsense. One doesn't define a form of a word in a vacuum. One > defines a form of a word, and the remaining forms implicitly take > their definition from it. The dictionary does not define "shouted", > for example. It defines "shout", and we know that "shouted" is merely > the past tense. > > If we were to accept this argument, then we would need to explicitly > define every possible form of each word that the rules define, which > would be preposterous. And even so, the "difference" between a full infinitive and bare infinitive when giving definitions in English is almost entirely an accident of how full infinitives are constructed (using the particle "to" rather than a change in ending, e.g.) When a dictionary defines "shout", the definition invariably will use the full infinitive for the verbs used in the definition (in the OED "to utter") but not for the main entry "shout", but it's clear from the usage that it's the infinitive that's being defined and that "shout" and "to shout" are identical.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Brainfuck Golf] Hole #4
On Jan 29, 2008 1:35 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > > The task for Hole #4 is to write a ROT13 encoder. The program's > > output should be identical to its input encoded in ROT13, as described > > at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROT13 (*). > > Another (niggly?) pair of questions. > > First, I assume we need to preserve case? > > Second, that wikipedia page is a little contradictory. The image at the > top implies that numerical digits translate [1-5]/[6-0] in Rot13, but the > written spec (and some online translators) preserve digits or at least > don't mention them... which is right? The article does mention them as part of ROT18. Why they're in that image is beyond me. I'm tempted to replace the image with one where that numerical stuff is whited out.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Brainfuck Golf] Hole #4
On Jan 29, 2008 7:53 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I can do a *double* ROT-13 encoder. Does that count? That would be an interesting contest. I'm sure I'd lose horribly with my bloated 4-character solution.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1879: assign Goddess Eris
On Jan 29, 2008 7:55 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I OBJECT to this appeal. Does that count for anything? It could count for something when the decision on who is named to the Appeals Panel is made...
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1887 assigned to BobTHJ
On Jan 30, 2008 3:02 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Making the public statement 'This statement is a lie' would > > cause the person making that statement to violate Rule 2149. > > Soliciting comments on this CFJ. > > Judge BobTHJ I agree with H. Zefram's analysis. Rule 2149 forbids a player from making statements that e does not believe to be true; presumably any player would not believe that statement to be true. If the rule instead prohibited players from making statements that they believed to be false, making such a statement wouldn't, IMO, be a violation since presumably a reasonable player would not consider the given statement to be false. --Wooble
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Accountor Election
On Jan 31, 2008 1:43 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 31, 2008 11:32 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 31, 2008 12:35 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I vote for the first candidate on the following list who has the most > > > votes among candidates that BobTHJ's final vote was not for: > > > WOOBLE, ERIS, AFO, COMEX. > > > > I vote WOGGLE. > > Is that a typo, or are you intentionally casting an invalid vote? I may or may not be voting the same as Woggle.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy
On Feb 1, 2008 9:17 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Geoffrey Spear wrote: > >I initiate a criminal CFJ with Zefram as the defendant, alleging e > >violated Rule 2149 in the above message by making the statement "I > >intend to deputise for BobTHJ to deregister em." while not reasonably > >believing it to be true. > > On what grounds do you think I didn't intend it? On the grounds that BobTHJ isn't a position and there's no reason to believe you can deputize for an individual player whose obligations aren't a result of holding a position.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy
On Feb 1, 2008 12:31 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Repealing equity cases would remove the ability to pursue equity in > the broader sense. Equity cases cover general inequities in the > proceedings of contracts, not just the particular cases where some > party has failed to meet eir obligations. Even in those cases, > deputisation can't always correct everything. For example, a party > who fails to vote in the manner e's required to; by the time > deputisation is an option, the voting period will likely have ended. Well, if I can make a point about trying to use a backdoor method of enforcing contracts when the courts don't give you the result you want and at the same time have a proposal rejected which I'll need to have happen if I'm ever going to get a damn F note, all the better.
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1893 assigned to Wooble
On Feb 2, 2008 9:57 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Caller's Arguments: > > In addition to the issue of contracthood in the case initiated by > pikhq, I request that the judge consider: > > 1) whether "agreement between all parties" to change the membership of > a "non-binding contract" must include the agreement of the prospective > parties in addition to the agreement of the prior parties; > > and > > 2) whether delegation of powers can be effected by a "contract" that > is not binding. I suggest that CFJs 1833-1835 may be useful > precedents here. Given the high likelihood that CFJ 1892 will establish a clear precedent that a contract that's not binding cannot exist by definition, would it be appropriate to wait for its judgment and then judge 1893 without considering these 2 requests, which are nonsensical if this is the case? --Wooble
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: judicial immunity
On Feb 4, 2008 2:43 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 4, 2008 12:25 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I disagree that making inappropriate judgments should be a criminal > > offense. I'd support having an appeal of a Judge's decision resulting > > in a judgment of OVERRULE either automatically or perhaps at the > > option of the Panel revoke either a D note or a Blue ribbon from the > > overruled Judge, though. > > What if the judgement in question is unappealable, such as the > judgement of an appeal panel itself? Right now such a judgment would need to be overturned by a Proposal anyway, if I'm not mistaken. If the inappropriateness is egregious enough, the members of the panel could always be horribly punished in the same proposal. -Wooble
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: judicial immunity
On Feb 4, 2008 1:49 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Regarding the first instance: A judge who intentionally assigns > an inappropriate judgement should be subject to prosecution. A > judge who assigns a judgement that e believes in good faith is > appropriate, but later turns out to be inappropriate, should (per > CFJ 1863) be either UNAWARE (if eir error is a matter of fact) or > EXCUSED (if it is a matter of interpretation). I disagree that making inappropriate judgments should be a criminal offense. I'd support having an appeal of a Judge's decision resulting in a judgment of OVERRULE either automatically or perhaps at the option of the Panel revoke either a D note or a Blue ribbon from the overruled Judge, though.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: judicial immunity
On Feb 4, 2008 3:21 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Geoffrey Spear wrote: > >Right now such a judgment would need to be overturned by a Proposal > >anyway, if I'm not mistaken. If the inappropriateness is egregious > >enough, the members of the panel could always be horribly punished in > >the same proposal. > > Bill of attainder, eh. Opposition to those started a rather famous war, > which resulted in a rather famous bill of rights. And yet they seem more palatable to me than letting a corrupt judicial system punish corrupt judges.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Crop for sale
On Feb 4, 2008 3:30 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 4, 2008 3:12 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You could simplify this sort of thing by amending the Vote Market > > agreement to allow the poster of a ticket to explicitly limit who > > can fill it. > > Is specifying multiple costs even legal? I doubt it; the agreement requires the person posting a ticket to specify "a cost".
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: judicial immunity
On Feb 4, 2008 3:35 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Geoffrey Spear wrote: > >And yet they seem more palatable to me than letting a corrupt judicial > >system punish corrupt judges. > > Er, we don't have a corrupt judicial system. We have individual corrupt > judges. If we had a completely corrupt judicial system, wouldn't you > want to abolish criminal cases entirely, and do *all* punishment by bill > of attainder? I was considering the hypothetical scenario where the CotC and a majority of a judicial panel are believed to be corrupt. If so, why should we trust the system to assign an appropriate punishment? In any case, I'm not sure objections to a majority of a comparatively tiny legislative body being able to hand out punishments really apply in a direct democracy. Is the whim of a majority of all Players really worse than the whim of 4 specific players chosen by a 5th? It's not like we have a Supreme Court comprised of 0.03% of the Players, chosen by a rigorous process and subject to impeachment.
DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Requirement
On Feb 6, 2008 8:30 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I hereby officially notify all Players of their Rule 1750-imposed duty. > > You have been warned. "Encouraged" doesn't seem to create all that much of a duty. How about changing "are encouraged to" to "SHALL", make it quarterly instead of yearly, and institute pop quizzes?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Because an action is an action is an action
On Feb 6, 2008 1:59 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Maybe the easiest thing is to combine these issues: leave N alone (get > rid of N+1) and disqualify the "first-class person who posts the intent, > or who posts the intent on behalf of a second-class person" from supporting. In theory, the PerlNomic Partnership doesn't have a first-class person acting on its behalf, although it hasn't attempted any game actions other than registering and seems unlikely to do so in the very near future.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Because an action is an action is an action
On Feb 6, 2008 1:03 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That of course was my first thought, but then I thought that there may be > trivial dependent things that it's perfectly reasonable and convenient for > the AFO (or someone else) to be able to do. General opinions all around, > based on the current ruleset? Anyone have examples of dependent actions > we should keep available to second-class persons? If the Ambassador or Registrar were to be a second-class person, then the powers of those offices that can only be done dependently could be affected. A partnership that is a Senator but which contains non-Senator members might want to call an Emergency Session, but I'd argue that no longer allowing a non-Senator partner to take this action would be a feature, not a bug. The only other instance I can think of is one where a partnership has non-Player partners who can't perform dependent actions on their own but currently could do so through their partnership. I'm perfectly comfortable with telling such people that they should register if they want to perform those actions, or amend their partnership agreement such that they can create an obligation for a first-class Player/Partner to take those actions when it would make sense to do so. Of course, a partnership consisting entirely of non-Players wouldn't have the second option, but again I'm comfortable with limiting partnerships of foreign invaders who don't wish to become Players themselves. --Wooble
Re: DIS: Proto: nomic definition
On Feb 7, 2008 8:38 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 7, 2008 7:13 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A nomic is an entity defined by a set of explicit rules that > > provide means for themselves to be altered arbitrarily, including > > changes to those rules which govern rule changes. > I suggest a "generally" here.. Consider B Nomic. They have a > > >Rule 4E41: Ceci n'est pas un titre > > > > There is a Rule 4E41, but it cannot be named. > > > > Any message to the Public Forum which refers to, mentions, or > > alludes to Rule 4E41, its title, or its contents, is disregarded and > > treated as if it had never reached the Public Forum. > > > > [[This applies to specific references to Rule 4E41 or to a set of > > Rules or a block of text containing it, NOT to references to the > > Ruleset or Rules in general.]] > > Right now, there are still ways to repeal it, but whether on purpose > or by accident this useless rule might become immutable some day, and > then B'd no longer be a nomic by our standards! I think the Emergency rule would need to be repealed as well; it says nothing of the Emergency Forum. Still, if enough B players want to turn it into a non-nomic, then Agora shouldn't try to bend over backwards to make its own definitions fit whatever the hell it becomes. At least the attempt to rename it "Monopoly" failed, or the whole thing would probably be shut down in a trademark lawsuit.
