Zefram wrote:
> R869: "A person ... is permitted to register.". A team, even if organised
> under the contract law of some state, is not a person.
I am finding your (in terms of Agoran law) baseless pronouncements on
what is and is not a person rather tiresome. When I brought the idea
to you in
On 5/23/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1-16 (Transactions) is great. I don't see your objection: just three
days ago you posted a protoproposal ("Generalize Dependent Actions")
which explicitly puts all the rule changes into a single transaction.
1-16 just formalises that possibility. I
On 5/23/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The 1994-02 to 1994-08 mail archive that I have from Oerjan does not
show such a player in that period. I joined sometime in 1995 and never
saw such a player. So it looks like they'd gone before 1994-02, at least.
In August 1993, Deb & Bob judged
After some thought, I decided I agree with maud regarding the Ambassador
office.
Here is my new draft. The significant change is to make Agora a player in
its Protectorate nomics. This seems to make sense from the standpoint of
allowing Agora to positively influence those nomics on a regular basi
Nomicapolis - http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/Main_Page
A wiki-based nomic with 4 active players. Off to a good start, but in need
of some TLC.
Dragonomic - http://www.roleplaymarket.com/board.aspx?topicID=14739
A new RPG-themed nomic started by myself on my website. Apart from myself
all ot
On Wednesday 23 May 2007 9:18 pm, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Apart from B Nomic which has already been mentioned, I am participating
> in two to three others that would be good candidates.
Care to link?
pgpPGznFQrGRS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On 5/23/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Roger Hicks wrote:
>Yes, I got the idea from the Agora-Rishonomic war. However it could
>possibly be applied to new startup nomics as well that wish to ensure
their
>longevity.
Editing the Risho history pages on the NomicWiki led me to the same
kind
On 5/23/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/23/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Whereas Agora, being the superpower of nomics, has an inherent
The quotation opened here is never closed. It's probably better to
delete the quotation marks.
Please restrict rule text to
On 5/23/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/23/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In a quantum universe, yes.
How do you figure?
Quantum theory isn't actually required; I was being snarky. I just
mean that in any Turing test setup with gravitationally generated
responses
I am requesting comments on the final iteration of my three related currency
and economy proposals:
Create a new rule titled "Property" with Power 1 and the text:
{
A Magnate is a type of entity. Magnates may own other entities called
Properties. All Properties must be owned by a Magnate. If a P
I suppose it wouldn't be too hard for a group of us to resurrect B Nomic. In
fact, it could be the first of may Agoran protectorates...
BobTHJ
On 5/23/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
comex wrote:
>I'm a refugee from the (dead, as far as I know, which is why I joined
>Agora) B Nomic.
Ah,
comex wrote:
>I'm a refugee from the (dead, as far as I know, which is why I joined
>Agora) B Nomic.
Ah, a pity. I was pondering joining, because Agora wasn't keeping me
occupied enough. (Agora's speeded up a tad since then.)
How did it die?
> I don't think any corporation, te
Maud wrote:
Look at rules 1-15 and 1-16. Ick ick ick.
What's wrong with 1-16?
Zefram wrote:
I approve the Hanging Judge judging CFJs 1666-1667 according
to the pseudo-judgement that Murphy published in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
...
On behalf of the Hanging Judge, CFJs 1666-8 are judged FALSE.
...
I pseudo-judge CFJs 1666 and 1667 false, as direct consequences of th
Michael Norrish wrote:
>Michael Slone wrote:
>>Were deb & bob playing before, during, or after 30 September 1993,
>>when rule 498 (``A player is any person who is registered as a
>>player...'') was enacted?
>
>Good question.
The 1994-02 to 1994-08 mail archive that I have from Oerjan does not
show
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Do they? I'm not finding it.
R869: "A person ... is permitted to register.". A team, even if organised
under the contract law of some state, is not a person.
> I'm not sure that the Rules do
>concern themselves with motives, nor should they.
Th
On Wednesday 23 May 2007 7:07 pm, Zefram wrote:
> I'm not sure that it should, but the rules definitely have an opinion
> on it. I'd be quite happy to generalise personhood much more widely so
> that the issue wouldn't arise. B Nomic's rule on this is a great model:
> it explicitly allows any "ex
comex wrote:
>Actually, e did. It was just hiding in the arguments.
Ah, missed that. Still doesn't change the fact that I didn't approve
judging it, so your initial attempt to submit judgement wasn't legal under
the Hanging Judge agreement. It's approved now, so if you resubmit then
we're back
On Wednesday 23 May 2007 7:00 pm, Zefram wrote:
> Murphy didn't pseudo-judge CFJ 1668
Actually, e did. It was just hiding in the arguments.
> I interpret the status of a partnership in the face of changes to the
> agreement's membership (and/or text, for that matter) as covered by
> Rule 1586 (De
On 5/23/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In a quantum universe, yes.
How do you figure?
--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
That's scary.
-- The Goddess Eris, in agora-discussion
On 5/23/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rule 106/5 (Power=3)
Adopting Proposals
A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,
including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making
^^
root wrote:
> How interesting. I predict that the force of gravity will be
> registering shortly at B Nomic.
Actually, I was thinking of using gravity in Maud's "repeal power"
challenge.
"Each Rule has a Mass and position. A Rule defers to any
group of Rules with a greater net gravitatio
On 5/23/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/23/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How interesting. I predict that the force of gravity will be
> registering shortly at B Nomic.
Can the force of gravity pass a Turing test?
In a quantum universe, yes. Fortunately, the rule
On 5/23/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
They can? Where does it say that?
In rule 106:
Rule 106/5 (Power=3)
Adopting Proposals
A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,
including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making
Michael Slone wrote:
On 5/23/07, Michael Norrish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I believe this happened in the early days - we had a couple playing as
a single Player. There was no attempt to conceal the situation from
us, but we probably didn't have anything in the rules saying that a
Player was a
Zefram wrote:
> > and why
> > should Agora care?
>
> I'm not sure that it should, but the rules definitely have an opinion
> on it.
Do they? I'm not finding it. I'm not sure that the Rules do
concern themselves with motives, nor should they.
On 5/23/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How interesting. I predict that the force of gravity will be
registering shortly at B Nomic.
Can the force of gravity pass a Turing test?
--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
Whooops! Free Kudos!
-- Manu, in agora-discussion
On 5/23/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Taral wrote:
>I am not sure that a proposal is empowered to deregister players.
Why not? Proposals can make pretty much any change to the gamestate.
They can? Where does it say that?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any
On 5/23/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not sure that it should, but the rules definitely have an opinion
on it. I'd be quite happy to generalise personhood much more widely so
that the issue wouldn't arise. B Nomic's rule on this is a great model:
it explicitly allows any "external f
On 5/23/07, Michael Norrish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I believe this happened in the early days - we had a couple playing as
a single Player. There was no attempt to conceal the situation from
us, but we probably didn't have anything in the rules saying that a
Player was a person either.
Were
On 5/23/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not sure that it should, but the rules definitely have an opinion
on it. I'd be quite happy to generalise personhood much more widely so
that the issue wouldn't arise. B Nomic's rule on this is a great model:
it explicitly allows any "external f
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Zefram wrote:
It could not be enforced in the
Agoran court system. Any legal person constructed by a foreign contract
would therefore not be recognised as a person in Agoran law.
Actually, it depends on the question you're asking, this isn't what BobTHJ
asked. For example
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>So my question is, why are any of these "fradulent",
In some of those cases, a team of two natural persons is implicitly
claiming to be a single natural person. You've quite correctly pointed
out a continuum; drawing a line within it is difficult and not necessarily
useful. B
Ed Murphy wrote:
>They're not required to, but they are required by R208(d) to specify
>the outcome of the Agoran decision.
Right. There were a couple that you showed as failed quorum, so those
ones are already legally resolved; the others won't be resolved until
you post the revised results.
I'
Roger Hicks wrote:
>Yes, I got the idea from the Agora-Rishonomic war. However it could
>possibly be applied to new startup nomics as well that wish to ensure their
>longevity.
Editing the Risho history pages on the NomicWiki led me to the same
kind of thoughts. I think it could be good for the p
Roger Hicks wrote:
>Amend Rule # 1742 by replacing the word "Players" in the first paragraph
>with "Persons".
This raises questions of enforceability. One of the implications of
R1503 is that the rules can only bind players, not non-player persons.
-zefram
Taral wrote:
>I am not sure that a proposal is empowered to deregister players.
Why not? Proposals can make pretty much any change to the gamestate.
-zefram
On 5/22/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Proposal 4982 (Ordinary, AI=1) by Zefram
deregister the absent
If arkestra is inactive, e is hereby deregistered.
If GreyKnight is inactive, e is hereby deregistered.
If Peter is inactive, e is hereby deregistered.
If sproingie is inactive, e is h
Zefram wrote:
> That would be fraudulent.
I'm sorry, that's an absurd assertion. Take the following:
1. As a non-player natural person, I register, and I have a non-
Player friend who reads the email list but doesn't play, and I
occasionally ask eir opinion on a vote and follow it.
2. As a
Yes, I got the idea from the Agora-Rishonomic war. However it could
possibly be applied to new startup nomics as well that wish to ensure their
longevity.
BobTHJ
On 5/23/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Maud wrote:
> I'm not convinced any nomic would agree to such a ``deal''.
It migh
Maud wrote:
I'm not convinced any nomic would agree to such a ``deal''.
It might if you scammed it. Didn't we once plan to saddle Rishonomic
with a Governor General or something?
On 5/23/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Whereas Agora, being the superpower of nomics, has an inherent
The quotation opened here is never closed. It's probably better to
delete the quotation marks.
Please restrict rule text to columns 7 through 70. This is the
standard way to for
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
I'll do that later when I have some time. We're interpreting quorum
as calculated when the Assessor resolves the Agoran decision, right?
Nearly. It's when the Assessor performs the calculations to determine the
results, which appears to be a distinct step that
I am soliciting comments on the following Proto-proposal:
Nomic Protectorates
AI 1
{
Create a new rule titled "Nomic Protectorates" with the text:
"Whereas Agora, being the superpower of nomics, has an inherent
responsibility to lead the nomic world; and whereas Agora desires to
encourage growth
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> it would be trivial for two non-players to make
>an arrangement, and then register under a name from a shared or invididual
>email account, Agora would have no way of distinguishing that joint
>arrangement from a "natural" player.
That would be fraudulent.
Zefram wrote:
> It could not be enforced in the
> Agoran court system. Any legal person constructed by a foreign contract
> would therefore not be recognised as a person in Agoran law.
Actually, it depends on the question you're asking, this isn't what BobTHJ
asked. For example, it would be tr
Roger Hicks wrote:
>Theoretically, couldn't two or more non-player persons make a binding
>agreement among themselves under a national contract law, and then, being a
>legal person, register as a Player?
That's a more interesting question. I believe the answer is still no.
Agora has never accepte
Geewhen is read the ruleset week again? I think it's time for me to take
another look.
Theoretically, couldn't two or more non-player persons make a binding
agreement among themselves under a national contract law, and then, being a
legal person, register as a Player?
BobTHJ
On 5/23/07, Zef
Roger Hicks wrote:
>This brings up an interesting question. Can a person who is not a player be
>a partner to an R1742 binding agreement?
No. R1742 explicitly refers to agreements between "players".
-zefram
This brings up an interesting question. Can a person who is not a player be
a partner to an R1742 binding agreement?
BobTHJ
On 5/23/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I hereby call for judgement on these two linked statements:
* a binding agreement under rule 1742 can be made among a set o
Ed Murphy wrote:
>I'll do that later when I have some time. We're interpreting quorum
>as calculated when the Assessor resolves the Agoran decision, right?
Nearly. It's when the Assessor performs the calculations to determine the
results, which appears to be a distinct step that occurs finitely
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
4965 | The Standing Court | Murphy| 1 | 06May07 | O
4969 | fix judicial turns | Zefram| 1 | 08May07 | O
Aside from failing quorum, both of these passed by a large margin.
I presume you'll repropose "The Standing Court"; if so, you
Proto-proposal: truthfulness
{{{
Enact a rule with title "Truthfulness" and text:
Players are prohibited from deliberately or recklessly making
false statements in any public message. Merely quoting a false
statement does not constitute making it for the purposes of this
Ed Murphy wrote:
>4965 | The Standing Court | Murphy| 1 | 06May07 | O
>4969 | fix judicial turns | Zefram| 1 | 08May07 | O
Aside from failing quorum, both of these passed by a large margin.
I presume you'll repropose "The Standing Court"; if so, you may as well
merg
Ed Murphy wrote:
>If the Pineapple Partnership and Primo Corporation remained registered
>despite change of membership, then the maximum number of active players
>was 28 (immediately after #4), so quorum might be as high as 10.
We have pseudo-judgements, most likely about to become official
judgem
55 matches
Mail list logo
