On Dec 3, 2007, at 2:32 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
Action:
I intend, on behalf of Agora, with Agoran Consent, to
nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueo
ydjjk.
Options: SUPPORT, OBJECT
Votes:
SUPPORT: root
DSPBCORMKPYOAFA: Zefram, Eris
AGAINT: OscarMeyr
For the re
On Dec 3, 2007 8:40 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Um, we're talking at cross-purposed I think? I mean I consent to
> the judgement you already posted a bit earlier (that's what I thought
> I was consenting to, those several days ago I said if 4 days pass
> without reasonable evidenc
comex wrote:
On Monday 03 December 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
TIYAEOTISIDTIDFTHPAFALT.
This is why...
Agora...
hmm...
I think I got it.
This is yet another example of the I say I do therefore I do fallacy
that has plagued agora for a long time.
Levi
On Monday 03 December 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> TIYAEOTISIDTIDFTHPAFALT.
This is why...
Agora...
hmm...
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> I take the following action:
> {
> I win the game.
> }
TIYAEOTISIDTIDFTHPAFALT.
-G.
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2007 7:51 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> It's been about 4 days and 2.5 hours since my "assuming no response
>>> within 4 days" message. I pre-emptively consent to root causing the
>>> panel
On Dec 3, 2007 10:54 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So you're saying that Fookiemyartug could not have contained that text
>> at the time CFJ 1799 was called? In that case, I move to SUSTAIN in
>> 1799a and OVERTURN with FALSE in 1805a.
root, you've already got (pre) approval to do
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Also, R101 does not come into play here. Weather or not you are bound
> by Fookiemyartug has little effect on this outcome. Fookiemyartug is
> not imposing any obligations upon you which you Agoran rights would
> prevent.
Oh, go read up on CFJ 1460. You
Ian Kelly wrote:
>Actually, by this reasoning, CFJ 1816 should be TRUE (the fact that
>the rules do not use the Dependency contract's definition of
>"dependent contracts" does not make it any less a definition), but CFJ
>1817 is still FALSE.
Mm. I think the statement of CFJ 1816 is too vague to b
On Dec 3, 2007 1:23 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Good point, and this case would be invalid. However, I would argue
> that R2172 provides the mechanism for Fookiemartug and Wooble's
> proto-action.
Interesting point; I'll have to think about that.
-root
On Dec 3, 2007 1:14 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> B Nomic is not an entity governed by the rules of Agora. Fookiemyartug
> on the other hand was created under Agoran law, and within its
> contract it submits to it.
It was created under Agoran law, but it is binding upon its members,
On Dec 3, 2007 1:16 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2007 1:12 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I take the following action:
> > {
> > I win the game.
> > }
>
> Using what mechanism? I can announce "I win the game" too, or I can
> chant it out loud, scribble it on
On Dec 3, 2007 1:12 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I take the following action:
> {
> I win the game.
> }
Using what mechanism? I can announce "I win the game" too, or I can
chant it out loud, scribble it on my monitor, or bury it in a time
capsule, but none of those are the action
On Dec 3, 2007 1:00 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That was the reason I didn't invoke CFJ 1455 in my appeal arguments;
> the judge's arguments in that case are not quite apropos. It doesn't
> make your reasoning sound, though. You haven't yet responded to my
> earlier comparison of t
On Dec 3, 2007 12:58 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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?
You forgot "on behalf of Agora", but regardless, I would argue no
On Dec 3, 2007 12:45 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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, authoriz
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 t
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 lo
On 12/2/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Per Fookiemyartug's contract, section 8:
>
> Fookiemyartug wins the game.
> BobTHJ wins the game.
> comex wins the game.
This fails for an absurd number of reasons.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble
On Dec 3, 2007 11:16 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2007 5:45 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I hereby, in linked fashion, assign root as judge of CFJs 1816-1817.
> >
> > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1816
> >
> > =
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 Pla
On Dec 3, 2007 11:20 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 6. This agreement may amended by the majority consent of the partners.
> For the purposes of this agreement, all partners implicitly give their
> consent unless they otherwise inform othe other partners within 24
> hours of such an a
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
On Dec 3, 2007 11:09 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So you are denying the existence of nonsensical action? Over 50
> million idiots in this world prove you wrong every day.
The CFJ was about whether nonsensical text can be an action, not about
whether a nonsensical action is an acti
On Dec 3, 2007 10:54 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So you're saying that Fookiemyartug could not have contained that text
> at the time CFJ 1799 was called? In that case, I move to SUSTAIN in
> 1799a and OVERTURN with FALSE in 1805a.
>
For the sake of clarity, I will publish the full
On Dec 3, 2007 5:45 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hereby, in linked fashion, assign root as judge of CFJs 1816-1817.
>
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1816
>
> == CFJ 1816 ==
>
> Type:
On Dec 3, 2007 10:19 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex wrote:
> >I couldn't imagine using a text-mode browser as my standard one.
> >What's the point...?
>
> They're much more user-friendly than graphical browsers. I've never
> found a graphical browser that I was comfortable about usi
On Dec 3, 2007 10:29 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Also note that nkep really has not been defined. It is still utterly
> > nonsensical.
>
> Then it's still not an action.
>
> > The Fookiemyartug contract simply indicates an effect
> > that occurs when a nomic commits that nonsensica
On Dec 3, 2007 10:54 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yet you are ignoring the fact that it was clearly used as an action
> within its context. I even confirmed this by having Agora perform said
> action, which you yourself supported (albiet conditionally). This is
> seriously opposed t
On Dec 3, 2007 10:46 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Kelly wrote:
> >I do not consent. With the nkep scam fully exposed,
>
> How was it exposed, btw? Who leaked?
>
> >totally ludicrous to me to consider an unknown definition from a
> >private contract as having meaning in public disco
On Dec 3, 2007 10:54 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So you're saying that Fookiemyartug could not have contained that text
> at the time CFJ 1799 was called? In that case, I move to SUSTAIN in
> 1799a and OVERTURN with FALSE in 1805a.
s/could not have contained/could not plausibly hav
On Dec 3, 2007 10:52 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/3/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ian Kelly wrote:
> > >I do not consent. With the nkep scam fully exposed,
> >
> > How was it exposed, btw? Who leaked?
> You know, when I called CFJ 1799 I fully intended nkep to be nonse
On Dec 3, 2007 10:33 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems to me that the standard of CFJ 1361 should be applied to
> actions as well as to nicknames. As a private definition, "nkep" did
> not clearly specify an action to most Agorans at the time the CFJ was
> issued; therefore it sh
On Dec 3, 2007 10:46 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Kelly wrote:
> >I do not consent. With the nkep scam fully exposed,
>
> How was it exposed, btw? Who leaked?
I just meant with BobTHJ having posted the portion of the
Fookiemyartug agreement that defines nkep.
-root
On 12/3/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Kelly wrote:
> >I do not consent. With the nkep scam fully exposed,
>
> How was it exposed, btw? Who leaked?
You know, when I called CFJ 1799 I fully intended nkep to be nonsense.
Don't confuse that attempted scam with this new nkep-means-win s
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Under the latest version of the proto, all types of land are the same
>price, so presumably players would just buy 0-farms and 1-farms and
>generate-2s-through-9s factories for simplicity.
But you don't get to choose which type of farm you get. It's random.
-zefram
Ian Kelly wrote:
>I do not consent. With the nkep scam fully exposed,
How was it exposed, btw? Who leaked?
>totally ludicrous to me to consider an unknown definition from a
>private contract as having meaning in public discourse.
It always was ludicrous. A secret definition obviously does not
On Dec 2, 2007 7:51 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > It's been about 4 days and 2.5 hours since my "assuming no response
> > within 4 days" message. I pre-emptively consent to root causing the
> > panel to judge these appeals as e sees fit.
>
>
On Dec 3, 2007 10:25 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/3/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > doing nkep itself is still an action which has no actual changes
> > associated with it. The Fookiemyartug contract simply causes something
> > to happen when nkep occurs. I could make
On Dec 3, 2007 10:10 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> doing nkep itself is still an action which has no actual changes
> associated with it.
Nonsense. Fookiemyartug defines it as:
Whenever a nomic
nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjks,
they are p
On 12/3/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> doing nkep itself is still an action which has no actual changes
> associated with it. The Fookiemyartug contract simply causes something
> to happen when nkep occurs. I could make a contract that says:
I think you just killed your own argument.
comex wrote:
>I couldn't imagine using a text-mode browser as my standard one.
>What's the point...?
They're much more user-friendly than graphical browsers. I've never
found a graphical browser that I was comfortable about using.
Fundamentally, graphical browsers are evil and rude because they
On Dec 3, 2007 10:02 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2007 9:43 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Nothing prevents that. Another contract could define nkep in a
> > completely different way. Unless particularly crafted to mess with my
> > action, and defined prior t
On Dec 3, 2007 9:59 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I couldn't imagine using a text-mode browser as my standard one.
> What's the point...?
I normally use Firefox. Links is quite useful in terminals, though.
-root
On Dec 3, 2007 9:43 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nothing prevents that. Another contract could define nkep in a
> completely different way. Unless particularly crafted to mess with my
> action, and defined prior to my action taking place, it would have no
> bearing on the results of
On 12/3/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ah, that would explain it. Regrettably no one is attempting to implement
> > Javascript in Lynx.
>
> One of the reasons that I use Links instead.
>
> -root
I couldn't imagine using a text-mode browser as my standard one.
What's the point...?
On Dec 3, 2007 8:12 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex wrote:
> >Although it is unfortunate that the select box requires Javascript,
>
> Ah, that would explain it. Regrettably no one is attempting to implement
> Javascript in Lynx.
One of the reasons that I use Links instead.
-root
On Dec 3, 2007 9:34 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I also withdraw my previous vote, and vote OBJECT.
>
My previous announcement was valid, as Goethe's vote was not valid.
Therefore this has no effect.
> Besides, what makes you think that Fookiemyartug is the *only*
> contract that def
On Dec 3, 2007 3:30 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
> >(Note: The votes for DSPBCORMKPYOAFA and AGAINT are invalid as these
> >are not possible options)
>
> Rubbish. You can tell that DSPBCORMKPYOAFA is (a synonym for) a valid
> vote value, because of the way in which we
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
On Dec 3, 2007 12:56 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You missed my vote, so this announcement was not effective. I withdraw
> my previous vote, and vote OBJECT. -Goethe
>
If you are referring to message-ID
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, it was
sent in response to a message I sent to the discus
On Dec 3, 2007 5:27 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is a poor reference for the pseudo-CFJ. That link shows the
> *current* state of the AC rules, rather than the ruleset that was in
> effect at the time of the CFJ. (Curiously, there's a form on that page
> with a select box that app
comex wrote:
>Although it is unfortunate that the select box requires Javascript,
Ah, that would explain it. Regrettably no one is attempting to implement
Javascript in Lynx.
-zefram
On 12/3/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Curiously, there's a form on that page
> with a select box that appears to offer a choice between versions of the
> ruleset, but as the form has no submit button it's impossible to use by
> standard means.)
Although it is unfortunate that the select
Josiah Worcester wrote:
>True, it is a poor reference. I note, though, that there are no rules stating
>that the submitter of a CFJ need to be a player *or* a person. Feel free to
>correct me, though.
Rule 591:
An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any
person, b
On Monday 03 December 2007 05:27:28 Zefram wrote:
> Josiah Worcester wrote:
> >Agora's Child CFJs on the following: Agora's Child is a player and a
> >partnership.
>
> Per the arguments given, I believe Agora's Child was not a person at the
> time of this message, so it could not initiate a CFJ.
Zefram wrote:
Taral wrote:
What are you smoking, Zefram? See my message before about M and N
being arbitrary (different) digits.
Your formula will accept digits M and N and output digits 2 to 9.
Not so useful if M=3 and N=7: you have no way to get 0 and 1 digits.
The complexity in my formula
Roger Hicks wrote:
>(Note: The votes for DSPBCORMKPYOAFA and AGAINT are invalid as these
>are not possible options)
Rubbish. You can tell that DSPBCORMKPYOAFA is (a synonym for) a valid
vote value, because of the way in which we used it. You might not be
able to tell *which* option it means, but
Taral wrote:
>What are you smoking, Zefram? See my message before about M and N
>being arbitrary (different) digits.
Your formula will accept digits M and N and output digits 2 to 9.
Not so useful if M=3 and N=7: you have no way to get 0 and 1 digits.
The complexity in my formula is due to the nee
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I also argue that AGAINT is an unambiguous synonym for OBJECT.
Even I got that old reference as soon as I saw it though... which might
even mean to some of us it counts as FOR.
-Goethe
60 matches
Mail list logo
