Quazie wrote:
> that was around when I came around, and cards were around. There was
> much going on.
Oh yes, it looks like there was lots of cards proto'd by quazie, as
well as quazie's first scam... I thought that was a bit later.
Yes, a good month!
-Goethe
Ian Kelly wrote:
On 5/31/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've heard Annabel mentioned several times. Is there someplace I
could find
a synopsis of this crisis?
I don't think that anybody has ever written up a thesis on the
subject, so your best bet is probably just to go digging th
On 5/31/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've heard Annabel mentioned several times. Is there someplace I could find
a synopsis of this crisis?
I don't think that anybody has ever written up a thesis on the
subject, so your best bet is probably just to go digging through the
archives
Ian Kelly wrote:
On 5/31/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just barely lost out to April 2005; April 2005 had a April Fools
joke that resulted in posting repeated copies of most of the
ruleset in discussion forum, so maybe that's not a measure of
discussion volume. On the other hand,
On 5/31/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just barely lost out to April 2005; April 2005 had a April Fools
joke that resulted in posting repeated copies of most of the
ruleset in discussion forum, so maybe that's not a measure of
discussion volume. On the other hand, current archives
s
I've heard Annabel mentioned several times. Is there someplace I could find
a synopsis of this crisis?
BobTHJ
On 5/31/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just wanted to congratulate everyone on the second-most busy month in
agoranomic.org discussion history (measured by bytes in archiv
Just wanted to congratulate everyone on the second-most busy month in
agoranomic.org discussion history (measured by bytes in archive file).
Just thought we might make it, but conversation died out in the final
few hours.
Just barely lost out to April 2005; April 2005 had a April Fools
joke tha
Goethe wrote:
Murphy wrote:
R1871 makes turned players ineligible to be a Trial Judge of a given
CFJ, but neither R1871 nor R911 makes them ineligible to be either a
Judge in general or an Appellate Judge in particular.
Y'know, I didn't buy this when I was assigning judges last month,
but I d
On 5/31/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Quorum for an Agoran decision is N/3 (where N is the number of
eligible voters), rounded up, with a minimum of five (unless this
is greater than N, in which quorum is N).
I think yo
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Ooh, no potential for future abuse there!
No more than in the current rules, certainly.
-zefram
On 5/31/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
root wrote:
> My keyboard hereby registers as a player, and none of you can judge
> otherwise.
Your keyboard is a pineapple. Now we've come full circle.
Also, can you prove you have the consent of your keyboard to bind
em to an agreement? Or
Zefram wrote:
> "First-class person" means a person of a biological nature.
Ooh, no potential for future abuse there! Why not go all the way?
R101 is hereby amended to read:
All persons are equal, but some are more equal than others.
-Goethe
proto-proposal: generalise naturalhood
AI: 3
We're currently putting the phrase "natural person" into various rules.
As root has pointed out, this is hard-coding decisions that we might well
change later. This proto factors out the relevant aspect of personhood.
In its present form it doesn't cha
root wrote:
> My keyboard hereby registers as a player, and none of you can judge
> otherwise.
Your keyboard is a pineapple. Now we've come full circle.
Also, can you prove you have the consent of your keyboard to bind
em to an agreement? Or to act on eir behalf? Otherwise you've
violated on
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Amend Rule 1959 (Voting Limits) to read:
Wrong number.
-zefram
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) to read:
Do you realise that would wipe out the quorum fix that is currently
under vote?
-zefram
Would you object less if we defined the phrase "natural player" to mean
"player who is a natural person", and used it?
No. I would object less if the rules were organized such that when we
eventually get tired of partnerships and repeal them, we won't have to
amend all the high-powered rules ju
Murphy wrote:
> R1871 makes turned players ineligible to be a Trial Judge of a given
> CFJ, but neither R1871 nor R911 makes them ineligible to be either a
> Judge in general or an Appellate Judge in particular.
Y'know, I didn't buy this when I was assigning judges last month,
but I didn't push
Eris wrote:
> How do you get "PP is a not a person -> PP is a person"? I must have
> missed that bit.
Oop, my misconstruction, it looked like in your original quote you were
replying to this sentence:
> Funny, that's exactly what I claimed when I said my deregistration
> paradox couldn't be reso
comex wrote:
On 5/31/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Unaffected by the "turned when it was called" bug, which only
disqualifies players from being a Trial Judge.
I believe it is affected: (R911)
A Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is
true:
...
Ed Murphy wrote:
>I recommend specifying when NEV is measured.
I think it's better to leave it dependent on when voter eligibility
is measured. The two should go together. The better fix is to specify
when voter eligibility is determined.
> (The late
On 5/31/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
so Eris's claim doesn't resolve the original ~P -> P -> ~P -> (...)
paradox at all. Unless I misunderstood her first statement.
How do you get "PP is a not a person -> PP is a person"? I must have
missed that bit.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Zefram wrote:
The quorum for an Agoran decision is ceil(sqrt(NEV)), where NEV
is the number of eligible voters on that decision.
I recommend specifying when NEV is measured. (The latest fix specifies
beginning-of-voting-period.)
On 5/31/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
>how does
>"the Pineapple Partnership is not not a person" imply "the Pineapple
>Partnership is not a person"?
It would if the PP's judgement of CFJ 1623 were appealed and r
Ian Kelly wrote:
>My previous comment stands: why do we need to pollute the rules with
>a multitude of "player who is a natural person" requirements when we
>can just legislate (or adjudicate) that only natural persons may be
>players?
It's interesting to have players who are not natural persons.
Ian Kelly wrote:
>how does
>"the Pineapple Partnership is not not a person" imply "the Pineapple
>Partnership is not a person"?
It would if the PP's judgement of CFJ 1623 were appealed and reversed
by the appeal board.
-zefram
On 5/31/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The voting limit on democratic proposals (VLDP) is one for a
player who is a natural person, and zero for any other entity.
The voting limit on ordinary proposals (VLOP) is variable. The
default VLOP is 5 for a player who is
On 5/31/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Zefram wrote:
> Specifically, I think, "the Pineapple Partnership is not a person".
Problem is, if (as Eris claims) it's a general rule that
(~P -> P) -> P,
then we could also say
(~Q -> Q) -> Q,
where Q = ~P.
so Eris's claim doesn't resolve t
On 5/31/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In classical logic, (~P -> P) -> P is a tautology, since ~P -> P is
equivalent to P.
((~P -> P) <-> P) -> ((~P -> P) -> P)
-root
On 5/31/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Unaffected by the "turned when it was called" bug, which only
disqualifies players from being a Trial Judge.
I believe it is affected: (R911)
A Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is
true:
...
iv) E is inelig
More possible quorum formulae:
>NEV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
>current rule 1 2 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7
>ceil(sqrt(NEV)) 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5
>floor(1.5*sqrt(NEV)) 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4
Michael Slone wrote:
>This would look better written out.
Would "the ceiling of ..." be clear enough, or does it have to be
a postfix "... rounded up to the next integer"? Or would fractional
quorum be OK, which gives the same effect?
>I can't say I support the decrease in quorum.
Is it the dec
On 5/31/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The quorum for an Agoran decision is ceil(sqrt(NEV)), where NEV
^^^
This would look better written out.
I can't say I support the decrease in quorum.
--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
Aww
On 5/31/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Problem is, if (as Eris claims) it's a general rule that
(~P -> P) -> P,
In classical logic, (~P -> P) -> P is a tautology, since ~P -> P is
equivalent to P.
--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
You people and your aberrant languages.
proto-proposal: square root quorum
AI: 2
{{{
Amend rule 879 by replacing the text:
The quorum for an Agoran decision is one third the number of
eligible voters, rounded up, with a minimum of five (unless
there are fewer than five eligible voters, in which case the
quorum
Then Primo casts all of its 0 votes :)
Sorry forgot the No Free Votes proposal went through.
BobTHJ
On 5/31/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Roger Hicks wrote:
>Primo Corporation votes FOR proposal #4997.
It can't. VLDP=0 for non-natural persons.
-zefram
proto-proposal: better VLOP balance after wins
AI: 3
{{{
Amend rule 1950 by replacing the text:
The voting limit of an eligible voter on a democratic proposal
is one and cannot be changed except by this rule.
The voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary proposal is
Zefram wrote:
> Specifically, I think, "the Pineapple Partnership is not a person".
Problem is, if (as Eris claims) it's a general rule that
(~P -> P) -> P,
then we could also say
(~Q -> Q) -> Q,
where Q = ~P.
so Eris's claim doesn't resolve the original ~P -> P -> ~P -> (...)
paradox at all.
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Pineapple Partnership 1
>Primo Corporation
etc.
It'd be a lot clearer if you used explicit "0" entries rather than blanks.
-zefram
Roger Hicks wrote:
>Primo Corporation votes FOR proposal #4997.
It can't. VLDP=0 for non-natural persons.
-zefram
Ian Kelly wrote:
>But I'm confused. What precisely is P supposed to represent in this context?
Specifically, I think, "the Pineapple Partnership is not a person".
-zefram
41 matches
Mail list logo
