Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Bring Back Executors

Ed Murphy wrote: >"If an executee is prohibiting from performing an >action, each of its executors is prohibited from performing the >action on behalf of that executee." That's not the sentence I have trouble with. I was talking about Holding executorship of another entity does not in itsel

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Bring Back Executors

Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: I interpreted it as equivalent to "a given action". Still not specifying which action. Nor does it need to. Okay, here's a third re-phrasing which is hopefully unambiguous: (original) "If an executee is prohibiting from performing an action, each of its exec

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Bring Back Executors

Ed Murphy wrote: >I interpreted it as equivalent to "a given action". Still not specifying which action. -zefram

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 4958-4969

Thanks for the info! On 5/9/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: BobTHJ wrote: > I vote as follows: Not to the Public Forum, hence ineffective (Rule 683 requires votes to be published, Rule 478 defines publishing). This also seems like a good opportunity to clarify TTttPF = "this time to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Bring Back Executors

Zefram wrote: Michael Slone wrote: *An* action, just as I wrote. Any action? This is such a strange reading that I'm still not convinced I've understood you correctly. You're placing a restriction on which executors have the power to perform actions on behalf of their executees. The restric

DIS: personhood

Just wondering, Maud, as you've called for an interpretation of "person" that excludes partnerships, do you accept any non-human persons? For example, is Koko the gorilla a person? Koko has at times been interviewed in English via an interpreter;

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Bring Back Executors

Michael Slone wrote: >*An* action, just as I wrote. Any action? This is such a strange reading that I'm still not convinced I've understood you correctly. You're placing a restriction on which executors have the power to perform actions on behalf of their executees. The restriction is that they

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 4958-4969

BobTHJ wrote: I vote as follows: Not to the Public Forum, hence ineffective (Rule 683 requires votes to be published, Rule 478 defines publishing). This also seems like a good opportunity to clarify TTttPF = "this time to the Public Forum".

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Bring Back Executors

On 5/9/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The power to perform what action? *An* action, just as I wrote. [snip some comments] From some of your comments I get the (distinct, but perhaps incorrect) impression that you believe that I use ``protoproposal'' as a synonym for ``final draft''

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: precedence takes precedence

Benjamin Schultz wrote: >The most recent phrasing was "All players must abide by the >rules" I can bring that phrasing back, if desirable. Or I can >use "obligation." I prefer the word "obligation". "Must" has too many meanings. -zefram

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: End power inflation NOW!

Benjamin Schultz wrote: >Would it be as effective, and without the power inflation, to have >R1482 state that it takes precedence over all other rules? Actually R1482 now wouldn't allow such an amendment in straightforward form, but you can get round that with a bit of fiddling. Now, if it's to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: votes on Proposals 4958-4969

Benjamin Schultz wrote: >What phrasing do you recommend? It's not the phrasing that's the problem, it's the concept. Even looking only at geographical regions where bears have historically been found, there are thousands of natural human spoken languages, no doubt some of them still unknown to sc

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Switches reborn

On 5/9/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sorry, I'm going on what wikipedia says: deontic logics are modal logics with axiom D: O(A) -> P(A). But P(A) means that A is permissible, not that A is possible. I'm working through one of von Wright's books on logic right now. I hope to have somet

DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Bring Back Executors

Michael Slone wrote: > but an executor with the power to > perform an action The power to perform what action? > Executorship of an entity that is not a natural person can be > granted or revoked by the action of a proposal with power as > great a

DIS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 4958-4969

I vote as follows: 4958 | Improved Turn Radius| Murphy| 1 | 30Apr07 | O PRESENT 4959 | Bears as Threats| OscarMeyr | 1 | 30Apr07 | O AGAINST 4960 | Patch of the Return of t... | OscarMeyr | 1 | 01May07 | O FOR 4961 | no VCs for Democratic pr... | Zef

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: votes on Proposals 4958-4969

Perhaps "widely spoken human language" or "commonly used human language"? I think both of those wordings would eliminate "I just made up a language where the name of each player translates to Bear". At least it should hold up under CfJ BobTHJ On 5/9/07, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: End power inflation NOW!

Power inflation should be fairly easy to control, being that a single AGAINST vote cancels out four FOR votes. I don't see this as being an issue. BobTHJ On 5/9/07, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On May 9, 2007, at 1:01 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: OscarMeyr wrote: Change the power o

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: precedence takes precedence

On May 9, 2007, at 3:25 AM, Zefram wrote: I'll include the suggested fixes in the next draft. i. All players have the responsibility to abide by all the rules currently in effect, in the form in which they are currently in effect. This raises much the same questions as Suber's

DIS: Re: BUS: votes on Proposals 4958-4969

On May 9, 2007, at 2:04 PM, Zefram wrote: I vote: 4958: FOR*8 4959: AGAINST*8 ("any Human language" makes it impossible to administer) What phrasing do you recommend? I want to make sure that languages other than USian English are okay, but neither Klingon nor C++ are okay. - Benjam

DIS: Re: BUS: End power inflation NOW!

On May 9, 2007, at 1:01 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: OscarMeyr wrote: Change the power of R101 to 4. You see, Zefram, the power inflation begins. What we really should do is deflate others of power-3 to power-2. But no one does that. We survived perfectly well for a long time without power- 4 R

DIS: Re: BUS: Promotor candidacy

On 5/9/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Anyone interested? No. But we ought to reintroduce the office of Historian. -- C. Maud Image (Michael Slone) Upon reading much of the ruleset, I decided that this game would make an excellent vice, and decided to jump in. -- Syllepsi

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Bring Back Executors

On 5/9/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Are proposals empowered to change executorship? I don't know how to answer your question, but if this protoproposal were adopted, then the two executorship-granting provisions would take effect. See the following, which appears earlier in the proto:

DIS: Re: BUS: Promotor candidacy

On 5/9/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Anyone interested? In electing you Promotor? Sure... -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "You can't prove anything." -- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Switches reborn

On 5/9/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 5/8/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think deontic logic might be closer, Closer than what to what? Closer than other modal logics to what we need. >but it axiomatizes the concept > that "o

DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Bring Back Executors

On 5/9/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Grant executorship of the Pineapple Partnership to Goethe and Zefram. Grant executorship of Human Point Two to Murphy and Quazie. Are proposals empowered to change executorship? -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "You can't prove anything." --

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: The Standing Court

Maud wrote: On 5/6/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Upon the adoption of this proposal, the Speaker and Clerk of the Courts are changed to standing; all other players are changed to lying down. What is the purpose of this provision of the proposal? Orientations need to be reinitiali

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 4958-4969

Michael Slone wrote: >I comment that this does not look like the intended proposal, since it >repeats proposal 4962. That's correct. The initial part up to and including "{{{" is not part of the proposal that I submitted. -zefram

DIS: Re: BUS: Agoran Weekly Journal

On 10/15/05, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: THE AGORAN WEEKLY JOURNAL VOLUME 50, BACK ISSUE 4 Wednesday, August 31, 2005 [snip] "Card Fixins" by root - Proposal 4834 adopted 8/6 This proposal is mine, not root's. -- C. Maud Image (Michael Slone) Just a quick note th

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: The Standing Court

On 5/6/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Upon the adoption of this proposal, the Speaker and Clerk of the Courts are changed to standing; all other players are changed to lying down. What is the purpose of this provision of the proposal? -- C. Maud Image (Michael Slone) We are living in

DIS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 4958-4969

On 5/8/07, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 4958 | Improved Turn Radius| Murphy| 1 | 30Apr07 | O 4959 | Bears as Threats| OscarMeyr | 1 | 30Apr07 | O 4960 | Patch of the Return of t... | OscarMeyr | 1 | 01May07 | O 4961 | no VCs for Democratic pr... |

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Switches reborn

On 5/8/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think deontic logic might be closer, Closer than what to what? but it axiomatizes the concept that "ought implies can". It's a decent axiom, one which we used to have in the ruleset, but there's nothing th

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ilegal or invalid?

On 5/8/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Illegal" must be explicitly defined. One could make a good argument for the claim that the word ``illegal'' is primarily used in legal contexts. -- C. Maud Image (Michael Slone) I would, given the chance, repeal about 70% of the current rulese

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix judicial turns

Michael Slone wrote: >It would be even clearer to write: I started out with that form, actually. I thought it was less clear, because it purports to make two amendments when the intention is actually to make only one. >There's no need for conditional edits here. It's conditional in any case; it

Re: DIS: Proto: Mother, May I?

On 5/8/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 2. MUST NOT (syn. MAY NOT, SHALL NOT, ILLEGAL, PROHIBITED) Attempts to perform the described action are successful, but violate the rules. This definition is incorrect. Prohibition does not imply possibility. The

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix judicial turns

On 5/8/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Zefram wrote: > If possible, amend rule 1871 by replacing the text "if e was turned > when it was called" with "if e is turned". Otherwise, amend rule 1871 > by replacing the text "if e was not standing when it was called" with > "if e is not stan

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Omnibus Spelling Reform, Part Deux

On 5/8/07, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Maud, do you have a fortune-style database of interesting quotes that are randomly appended to your signature file? Yes, but sometimes I don't select them randomly. -- C. Maud Image (Michael Slone) "Give me all your money or I'll pinch you

Re: DIS: Proto: Mother, May I?

Several of the terms that you define are already used to define the behaviour of artificial entities, rather than only to constrain player actions. Or do you intend that they only have the formal meaning when capitalised? You should add "MANDATORY" as an alternative for "MUST". Also, these alter

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset

Benjamin Schultz wrote: >Zefram, is the following duplication in R1922 correct? Did we forget >to delete a paragraph (d)? It's correct. There was no Champion clause until 2007-01-22. There were two proposals in the 2007-01-22 batch that would each append a "(d) Champion" clause, and both pass

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: precedence takes precedence

Benjamin Schultz wrote: >Retitle the rule "Agoran Rights, Privileges, and Responsibilities." Be more explicit about which rule. This can be read as referring to an existing rule by title, commanding that it be retitled, but not saying what the new title is. Also put the "." outside the quotes un

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Return of the Son of Property Magnate

Benjamin Schultz wrote: >There are two relevant classes of entities: Owners and Property. Pick some term other than "Owner". That word is already used to refer to the entity that owns a particular Trinket. -zefram