quazie wrote:
his is a mostly complete report from the IADoP.
Because we have more than enough CFJs as it is, you should
probably state explicitly that you're publishing the report
on behalf of IADoP Human Point Two.
While I'm at it, I state under penalty of perjury that the
membership of the
BobTHJ wrote:
This should stir the pot a bit... I'm doing this just to see what happens.
On behalf of the Pineapple Partnership I take the following action:
The Pineapple Partnership deregisters
On behalf of Second System Effect I take the following action:
Second System Effect deregisters
quazie wrote:
>We have no proof.
No more than you have proof that Goethe and I actually made the agreement
that constructed the Pineapple Partnership. Historically this kind of
situation has not been an impediment to judges finding the truth.
-zefram
Zefram wrote:
Roger Hicks wrote:
On behalf of the Pineapple Partnership I take the following action:
The Pineapple Partnership deregisters
BobTHJ is not granted the capacity to perform this action by any agreement
regulating the Pineapple Partnership.
-zefram
We h
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Which is why allowing e.g. a Power=1 rule to temporarily trump a
>Power=3 rule would require >= 3/4 support on a case-by-case basis.
You'd also allow a Power=2 rule to trump a Power=3 rule with a 60%
supermajority, where currently a 75% supermajority would be required.
Pretty big
On 5/17/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm envisioning writing the entire ruleset in a formal
denotational semantics language and automated theorem proving in the pi
calculus... we're not going to get there easily.
That was kind of the idea behind schemenomic -- perhaps having an
(author
I plan to propose this if/when NFV II passes:
Proto-Proposal: Quorum fix
Add the following paragraph to the end of Rule 879 (Quorum):
Voters whose voting limit is less than one are not considered
eligible for the purposes of this rule.
(Easier than adding a new term or hacking the ex
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
e) A player may, with Agoran consent with a consent index of
H/L, perform an action and cause a rule with Power L to take
precedence over a rule with Power H with regard to that
action. E must be otherwise permitted to perform that ac
comex wrote:
On Sunday 13 May 2007 7:09 pm, Ed Murphy wrote:
Second-System Effect registers.
I call for judgement on the following statement:
Second-System Effect registered on or about Sun, 13 May 2007 16:09:28 -0700
Arguments:
Without knowledge of the agreement that defines SSE, this act
here's the first one, the more political one. The second one (later
sometime) is more mathematical.
Proto: On all our houses
Repeal 1688, 1482, and 1030.
[Note: order of things must be considered for this bootstrapping]
Enact the following Rule, entitled "All our houses"
House is a stuc
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>The answer is, only if we create a rule with higher precedence.
Not true. That paragraph doesn't prevent repeal of the rule at all.
Also, if you want to change the precedence mechanism without repealing
R1482, all you have to do is amend R1482 to delete that paragraph.
>that
Curse you, Maud. Now I am thinking of it. I shouldn't be. I've got
two proto-proto entirely new systems lined up.
HOWEVER: Is it possible to repeal R1482 with its silly "protective"
clause:
No change to the Ruleset can occur that would cause a Rule
to stipulate any other means of
Ed Murphy wrote:
> e) A player may, with Agoran consent with a consent index of
> H/L, perform an action and cause a rule with Power L to take
> precedence over a rule with Power H with regard to that
> action. E must be otherwise permitted to perform that action,
>
You could always re-institute the Virus...
BobTHJ
On 5/17/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Maud wrote:
> I hereby place a bounty of one magic cookie and a (virtual) pat on the
> back to the first person to write a good proto or proposal which would
> repeal rules 1688, 1482, and 1030.
Maud wrote:
I hereby place a bounty of one magic cookie and a (virtual) pat on the
back to the first person to write a good proto or proposal which would
repeal rules 1688, 1482, and 1030. Goodness of protos and proposals
will be evaluated relative to my biases, of course.
This only achieves
Michael Slone wrote:
>I don't intend that supermajority voting vanish.
So we'll still need a mutability index, or something equivalent, you
just don't want it tied to precedence.
There's a basic problem with this. Consider the whole class of
systems where precedence is a partial ordering among r
On 5/17/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There's a bug in the proto. You specify AI=2 but then don't actually
use it. I presume you intend for the rule to be enacted with power=2.
No, I intended for it to be enacted with power 1. I chose AI=2 so
that it would be democratic. On the othe
Maud wrote:
> Those rights which
> are enumerated in the rules or recognized by the Agoran courts
> may not be abridged, reduced, limited, or removed by Agoran law,
> and any provision of an otherwise binding agreement which would
> do so is unenforceable.
Not to do wit
On 5/17/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Do you intend there to be no precedence mechanism at all? And what
about supermajority voting?
I don't intend that supermajority voting vanish.
As for precedence, there is almost certainly a nice system out there
that we haven't tried, since we've
I wrote:
>I'm up for it. Why are you not?
Because you deregistered, of course. I have a terrible memory for humans.
-zefram
On 5/10/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I no longer wish to discuss anything at all with you.
Okay, I'm done with the above pointless nonsense.
--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
Don't you mean I say I don't, therefore I don't, I say I do, therefore
I don't, or I don't say I do, the
Michael Slone wrote:
>repeal rules 1688, 1482, and 1030.
Do you intend there to be no precedence mechanism at all? And what
about supermajority voting?
-zefram
Michael Slone wrote:
>Here is a revised version of "Clarify actions".
I like this, especially what you do with R101. Please propose it.
-zefram
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 4972 (Democratic, AI=3) by Goddess Eris
No free votes II
Change rule 1950 (Voting Limits) to read:
The voting limit of an eligible voter on a democratic proposal
is one and cannot be changed except by this rule.
The
I hereby place a bounty of one magic cookie and a (virtual) pat on the
back to the first person to write a good proto or proposal which would
repeal rules 1688, 1482, and 1030. Goodness of protos and proposals
will be evaluated relative to my biases, of course.
--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
O
This is a legislative solution to a problem which has already been
solved judicially. But this will remind us.
If someone is willing to propose this, please feel free to do so.
--
Protoproposal h0137 (AI=2)
Reintroduce indices
Enact a rule, titled "Indices", reading:
Indices are
Here is a revised version of "Clarify actions". It changes which
rights are guaranteed by rule 101 slightly, eliminating one which in
my opinion is a direct consequence of the others, and adding the right
to propose changes to the game.
In this proto I'm trying to introduce a bit of regulation f
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
On behalf of Human Point Two:
On behalf of Human Point Four:
HP2 isn't a partner in HP4, is it?
It purports to be, at least. From the announcement in which HP4
was allegedly registered: "Human Point Two, Human Point Three,
and I have made a R1742 binding ag
Ed Murphy wrote:
>On behalf of Human Point Two:
> On behalf of Human Point Four:
HP2 isn't a partner in HP4, is it?
-zefram
quazie wrote:
>If Murphy has voted on a proposal as of 5/16/07 @ 9:50pm (PST),
Murphy has voted on many proposals. E's been playing the game for a
long time.
>I vote in the same manner as e has.
Ah, but do you vote the same way as em too? Anyway, this conditional
vote and reference to someone
30 matches
Mail list logo
