> > no Agoran rule, ruling, or custom allows for [the mailing lists] to be
> > messed with from within the game. Yet Agora exists and is nomic, dependent
> > on them, yet not containing them within its self-complete nomic nature.
>
> What do you call Rule 478?
R478 governs how players interact wit
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
> comex wrote:
>> Nevertheless, a standard Nomic game that made one rule completely
>> unamendable still deserves to be called a nomic.
> I'm not sure I agree. The rest of the ruleset, taken as a whole, could still
> qualify as nomic; the immutable rule would
On Jan 29, 2008 10:32 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Upon the adoption of this proposal, root is awarded the Patent Title
> of Dernier Cri.
You know, root is like a conservative Agoran political party.
I should make a liberal one.
Pavitra wrote:
Consider the mailing lists that support Agora; even though Agora would not
run without them (well, it *could*, but *currently* we are depending on
them), no Agoran rule, ruling, or custom allows for them to be messed with
from within the game. Yet Agora exists and is nomic, depend
comex wrote:
I vote as indicated below. A vote for TOOR on a proposal is a vote
cast opposite to the player root's final vote on that proposal
(FOR->AGAINST and vice versa, PRESENT->PRESENT.)
http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/yee_haw_my_vote_cancels_out
comex wrote:
On Jan 28, 2008 11:36 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I intend [with two support] to appeal this.
Arguments: Judgement is not sufficiently verbose and does not appeal
to sufficiently esoteric sources for its logic.
My attempt to appeal Eris's judgement of CFJ 1879 garnered
A vote for ROOT on a proposal is a vote cast in the same manner as Root's
final vote on the same proposal.
On Jan 29, 2008 7:53 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > NUM FL AI SUBMITTER TITLE
> > 5423 O0 1.5 woggle Refactoring Contracts II
>
ROOTx4
> > 5424 D0 2Zefram
Murphy wrote:
>A nomic is a system of rules that includes formal provisions for
>general-purpose self-amendment.
I'm not sure that the rules themselves constitute the nomic. Is Agora
different from the Agora ruleset? Is either the SLR or the FLR in closer
identity than the other wi
On Jan 29, 2008 5:53 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can do a *double* ROT-13 encoder. Does that count?
>
Nope. But I'll accept triple, or any other positive odd number of
encodings.
-root
I can do a *double* ROT-13 encoder. Does that count?
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
On Tuesday 29 January 2008 17:04:08 Ben Caplan wrote:
> > > R2144 only applies to partnerships with identical bases. I'm also
> > > concerned about overlapping non-identical bases.
> >
> > Aha, so e.g. 3 players could create and register 4 partnerships
> > (AB, AC, BC, ABC), and it gets worse as t
> > R2144 only applies to partnerships with identical bases. I'm also
> > concerned about overlapping non-identical bases.
>
> Aha, so e.g. 3 players could create and register 4 partnerships
> (AB, AC, BC, ABC), and it gets worse as the number of conspirators
> increases. Would it suffice to prev
On Tuesday 29 January 2008 15:56:20 Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> >> Why? If we passed a Power-4 Rule "This rule can't be changed or
> >> repealed, and the creation of any system which can overrule this Rule is
> >> annulled before taking effect" and we otherw
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Josiah Worcester wrote:
>> Why? If we passed a Power-4 Rule "This rule can't be changed or repealed,
>> and the creation of any system which can overrule this Rule is annulled
>> before taking effect" and we otherwise carried on as normal, we're still
>> as much of a nomic as
On Tuesday 29 January 2008 09:51:33 Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Zefram wrote:
> > comex wrote:
> >> Nevertheless, a standard Nomic game that made one rule completely
> >> unamendable still deserves to be called a nomic.
> >
> > I'm not sure that it does. I think that's violating the
On Jan 29, 2008 11:42 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The article does mention them as part of ROT18. Why they're in that
> image is beyond me. I'm tempted to replace the image with one where
> that numerical stuff is whited out.
Or at least fix the caption.
-root
On Jan 29, 2008 11:35 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First, I assume we need to preserve case?
Yes. That's not too clear from the page, but it would be necessary to
make their examples come out right.
> Second, that wikipedia page is a little contradictory. The image at the
> top
On Jan 29, 2008 1:35 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > The task for Hole #4 is to write a ROT13 encoder. The program's
> > output should be identical to its input encoded in ROT13, as described
> > at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROT13 (*).
>
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Second, that wikipedia page is a little contradictory. The image at the
>top implies that numerical digits translate [1-5]/[6-0] in Rot13, but the
>written spec (and some online translators) preserve digits or at least
>don't mention them... which is right?
I've never seen
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> The task for Hole #4 is to write a ROT13 encoder. The program's
> output should be identical to its input encoded in ROT13, as described
> at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROT13 (*).
Another (niggly?) pair of questions.
First, I assume we need to preserv
Ed Murphy wrote:
>If it can circumvent the following set of separate steps:
>
> 1) Create a rule that re-defines "repeal" to mean something else
> 2) Create a rule that re-defines, say, "nkep" as a synonym of the
> ordinary-language meaning of "repeal"
> 3) Nkep the unamendable rule (and the
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Would it suffice to prevent a partnership from standing
>up if any member of its basis is also a member of the basis of a
>standing player?
Mm. That seems like a better approach, but beware of sowing uncertainty
about who is supine. If a partnership claims to stand
comex wrote:
On Jan 29, 2008 5:57 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A more interesting case, which came up in my earlier era of playerhood
when we first considered recognising Canada as a nomic, is the
German constitution. It has rules providing for amendment to the
constitution, but an ex
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
So two partnerships with the same basis can both be qualified?
Yes, but Rule 2144 still lets any player deregister one of them
with Agoran Consent.
R2144 only applies to partnerships with identical bases. I'm also
concerned about overlapping non-identical base
On Jan 29, 2008 12:00 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2008 9:31 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Here I am attempting to use the normal english definition of the word
> > 'deregister'. Note that R869 does not define this word. It defines "to
> > deregister" and "
On Jan 29, 2008 12:00 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2008 9:31 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Here I am attempting to use the normal english definition of the word
> > 'deregister'. Note that R869 does not define this word. It defines "to
> > deregister" and "
On Jan 29, 2008 9:31 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here I am attempting to use the normal english definition of the word
> 'deregister'. Note that R869 does not define this word. It defines "to
> deregister" and "to be deregistered".
Nonsense. One doesn't define a form of a word in
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Zefram wrote:
> comex wrote:
>> Nevertheless, a standard Nomic game that made one rule completely
>> unamendable still deserves to be called a nomic.
>
> I'm not sure that it does. I think that's violating the fundamental
> concept of nomic. I think that the existence of ent
comex wrote:
>Nevertheless, a standard Nomic game that made one rule completely
>unamendable still deserves to be called a nomic.
I'm not sure that it does. I think that's violating the fundamental
concept of nomic. I think that the existence of entirely unamendable
rules is a good criterion to
On Jan 29, 2008 4:58 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> H. parties to the Vote Market: I hereby inform you of equity case 1886
> and invite you to submit arguments regarding the equitability of the
> situation described therein.
>
My original sell tickets state:
{
Sell Ticket
Action: If all fi
On Jan 29, 2008 5:57 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A more interesting case, which came up in my earlier era of playerhood
> when we first considered recognising Canada as a nomic, is the
> German constitution. It has rules providing for amendment to the
> constitution, but an explicit pr
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> Refusing to vote for a proposal that clearly has the support
> of the majority of people who have considered it in order to cause it
> to fail to reach quorum is a despicable action that shouldn't be
> encouraged let alone legislated.
Now, now, it's a
Ed Murphy wrote:
>>So two partnerships with the same basis can both be qualified?
>
>Yes, but Rule 2144 still lets any player deregister one of them
>with Agoran Consent.
R2144 only applies to partnerships with identical bases. I'm also
concerned about overlapping non-identical bases.
-zefram
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of a judicial
case are the active first-class players, plus the active
non-first-class players whose basis does not contain any
standing or sitting players,
So two partnerships with the same basi
On Jan 29, 2008 2:43 AM, Jeremy Koo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> After review, it seems I suffered from a slight misunderstanding of
> the rules. Thank you all for your comments. It is my intent,
> actually, to just have this apply to proposals. In addition, I
> believe votes of PRESENT (which a
On Tuesday 29 January 2008 04:58:57 Zefram wrote:
> H. parties to the Vote Market: I hereby inform you of equity case 1886
> and invite you to submit arguments regarding the equitability of the
> situation described therein.
>
> >== CFJ 1886 ===
You could say that something is a nomic if it could pass a law that says
""
On Jan 29, 2008 12:29 AM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 28 January 2008 11:07 Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
> > >In particula
Portion of Judge Zefram's arguments for CFJ 1784:
The subject line does not disclaim the message's contents.
Using the precedent given to us from CFJ 1784, the correct way to interpret
this public message would be to cover up the subject line and read the body
of the message by itself. The message
I wrote:
>So two partnerships with the same basis can both be qualified?
On second inspection, another bug: it refers to posture in a rule
that's meant to be strictly about generic aspects of judge assignment.
You could fix this by doing something like "... active players whose
basis does not cont
Ed Murphy wrote:
> The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of a judicial
> case are the active first-class players, plus the active
> non-first-class players whose basis does not contain any
> standing or sitting players,
So two partnerships with the same basis can both
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Does that put England Right Out?
No. The constitution of the UK is entirely amendable. In fact, it can
all be amended by ordinary statute law requiring only a simple majority in
each chamber of Parliament: the UK has no law that is specially difficult
to amend.
A more intere
Ben Caplan wrote:
>Amend rule 1023 (Common Definitions) by appending the following paragraph to
>the end:
Please don't put it into R1023. That's overloaded as it is. Put it in
one of the Foreign Relations rules, or into a new rule if there isn't
already one where it would fit sensibly.
>
Ben Caplan wrote:
>I personally find it helpful to have a printout for this reading,
Waste of paper. You're better off reading it in softcopy, so that you
can search around for key words.
-zefram
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Criminal 1863 trial GoetheMon 28 Jan 03:21:06
Whups. I judge as follows:
#1: CFJ 1860, upon reassignment, has been found FALSE. This has not
been appealed, and moreover the reasoning in the case points out that
BobTHJ was incorrect
44 matches
Mail list logo
