On Feb 5, 2008 6:14 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 5440 AGAINST (you forgot to give the rule Power 2, so its attempt to
> alter voting limits would be ineffective)
Drat. For some reason I had it in my head that new rules are created
with the same power as the proposal that spaw
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Huh. I suppose it is.
>
> I think it would suffice to treat the number of supporters as one less
> if the initiator is non-first-class. This could cover With N Support
> as well, replacing "or N+1 supporters".
>
> What if the initiator is first-class but th
Goethe wrote:
You're right on the other two edits, will fix, but on this last one,
isn't this the current situation too? Or am I the one overlooking
something? -Goethe
Huh. I suppose it is.
I think it would suffice to treat the number of supporters as one less
if the initiator is non-firs
"Reform" refers to 1 Aug 2007, the approximate time when Zefram's
judicial reform proposal was adopted (changing initiation of appeal
from "automatically on third call for appeal" to "with 2 support",
and resolution from "automatically on third appeal judge's decision"
to "upon panel action").
Ap
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Maybe the one you proposed for root, I haven't seen the vote count
>> yet :).
>
> BobTHJ, you mean? Deconstructing the Writ of FAGE is perfectly good
> grounds for a Patent Title, if you ask me.
No, I meant the one to root for pioneering voting ROOT. That
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> (3) the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent,
>>and the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N,
>> or the action has at least one supporter and no objectors.
>
> Alice could cause a non-first-class player to perfor
"Reform" refers to 1 Aug 2007, the approximate time when Zefram's
judicial reform proposal was adopted (changing initiation of appeal
from "automatically on third call for appeal" to "with 2 support",
and resolution from "automatically on third appeal judge's decision"
to "upon panel action").
Ap
Goethe wrote:
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
h previously-awarded Patent Titles would you put into this
category? Particularly anything that (a) was awarded by proposal
and (b) received less than 3-to-2 support.
Maybe the one you proposed for root, I haven't seen the vote count
yet :
Goethe wrote:
To perform a dependent action, a player CAN and MUST publicly
announce eir intent, unambiguously describing both the action
and the method, including the required value for N. A player
CAN perform a previously unambiguously described dependent
acti
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Zefram wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> We should make the rare, easily
>> noticed and corrected case (second-class persons doing the actions) the
>> case with extra reporting requirements, not the everyday one that is
>> leading to the vast
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
h previously-awarded Patent Titles would you put into this
> category? Particularly anything that (a) was awarded by proposal
> and (b) received less than 3-to-2 support.
Maybe the one you proposed for root, I haven't seen the vote count
yet :). Anyway sim
On Feb 5, 2008 9:23 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Speaking of, I haven't had time to grok VLOD yet. Can it now
> apply to decisions other than whether to adopt proposals, or is
> it basically just a change of terminology?
In theory, VLOD and VLDD apply to any decision with an adoptio
Goethe wrote:
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
5437 AGAINST x 13 (convince me why this is needed)
Because Patent Titles should be actually Worth Something, and not
just accumulated, easy-to-come-by clutter. -Goethe
Which previously-awarded Patent Titles would you put into this
category
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> 5437 AGAINST x 13 (convince me why this is needed)
Because Patent Titles should be actually Worth Something, and not
just accumulated, easy-to-come-by clutter. -Goethe
"Reform" refers to 1 Aug 2007, the approximate time when Zefram's
judicial reform proposal was adopted (changing initiation of appeal
from "automatically on third call for appeal" to "with 2 support",
and resolution from "automatically on third appeal judge's decision"
to "upon panel action").
Ap
On Feb 5, 2008 8:27 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > This is getting tiresome.
> I object. That quote is from Zefram, not Murphy.
Ahaha... it was just a quote whose original message I was too lazy to
go back to. Now I realize how my selective quoting could be
misinterpreted.
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2008 4:38 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> woggle's new argument is reasonably complete and logically coherent.
>> However, I believe it displays poor judgement regarding the use of the
>> English language, inasmuch as it does not accept th
On Feb 5, 2008 4:38 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> woggle's new argument is reasonably complete and logically coherent.
> However, I believe it displays poor judgement regarding the use of the
> English language, inasmuch as it does not accept the modifying clause in
> question as modifyin
On 21:37 Mon 04 Feb , Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > Results of Brainfuck Golf Hole #4: There was only one entry. I hereby
> > award 35 points to Goethe.
>
> Are any folks still trying, or is it pretty much game over here? -Goethe
I'm sorry; other projects
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> We should make the rare, easily
>noticed and corrected case (second-class persons doing the actions) the
>case with extra reporting requirements, not the everyday one that is
>leading to the vast majority of trivial and annoying errors.
F
comex wrote:
>My attempt to appeal Eris's judgement of CFJ 1879 garnered the following votes:
comex, please make another attempt at resolving this. The standard
interpretation of "AGAINT", which woggle voted, is that it is a variant
spelling of "AGAINST", which is an acceptable synonym for "OBJEC
On Feb 5, 2008 8:44 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BobTHJ wrote:
>
> > I intend to make the following changes to the Vote Market agreement
> > with the majority consent of its parties:
>
> I consent to these changes. Hmm, we haven't had auctions since 2003,
> probably a good time to re
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Oh, just noticed you didn't like this either. This was intended. If the
>vote requires only 1 vote of support, you can resolve by reporting only 1 of
>the votes of support, even if there are more (because the additional votes
>don't change the outcome). -Goethe
No, you've
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Zefram wrote:
> If you
> require someone to report "up to 3 votes", that sounds like it could
> be satisfied by reporting one vote even if there are actually four.
Oh, just noticed you didn't like this either. This was intended. If the
vote requires only 1 vote of suppor
On Feb 5, 2008 10:40 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/4/08, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Now, the question is: Will this case finally die?
>
> I intend, with 2 supporters, to appeal Iammars's judgement of CFJ 1831
> (for no reason other than to get the third appeal).
>
I was
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Zefram wrote:
> Since we need the implicit vote, or some equivalent mechanism, to deal
> with partnerships, I think reporting it would be helpful in making sure
> it gets done right.
I see nothing wrong with implicit reporting of the implicit vote. It's
pretty easy to tell wh
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>This is where we fundamentally disagree. Since dependent actions were
>foolishly made a subclass of agoran decision, the reporting burden has
>been ridiculously high and prone to error...
I don't disagree about this principle. I'm happy for the reporting
requirements to be re
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> I would like to know as well. If I run another round, is anybody
>> going to challenge Goethe for the points, or should I just terminate
>> the contest?
>
> I would have tried, but it wasn't a good week for me to try something
> as time-consuming as BF. An
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Zefram wrote:
> I recognised that you intended to avoid that part of the reporting, and
> I deliberately didn't include it in my version because I didn't think
> that change worthwhile.
This is where we fundamentally disagree. Since dependent actions were
foolishly made a sub
On Feb 5, 2008 9:01 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would have tried, but it wasn't a good week for me to try something
> as time-consuming as BF. Anyone for Python Golf?
I would be up for it, but I want to be a contestant this time.
Last week as I was searching for existing BF ROT1
root wrote:
On Feb 4, 2008 10:37 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
Results of Brainfuck Golf Hole #4: There was only one entry. I hereby
award 35 points to Goethe.
Are any folks still trying, or is it pretty much game over here? -Goethe
I woul
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>I think you misunderstand my intent (meaning that yes, the wording is
>poor). The initiator should not be required to report eir own support,
>it's a common mistake and annoyance.
I recognised that you intended to avoid that part of the reporting, and
I deliberately didn't inc
On Feb 4, 2008 10:37 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > Results of Brainfuck Golf Hole #4: There was only one entry. I hereby
> > award 35 points to Goethe.
>
> Are any folks still trying, or is it pretty much game over here? -Goethe
I would l
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Zefram wrote:
>> the tally of votes need only include a count of up to N valid
>> ballots other than the initiator's if the initiator's implicit
>> support is a valid ballot, or N+1 valid ballots if it is not,
>> even if there are more.
>
> I
BobTHJ wrote:
I intend to make the following changes to the Vote Market agreement
with the majority consent of its parties:
I consent to these changes. Hmm, we haven't had auctions since 2003,
probably a good time to revisit the idea.
One general problem I've noticed with the Vote Market, th
On 2/5/08, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > Results of Brainfuck Golf Hole #4: There was only one entry. I hereby
> > award 35 points to Goethe.
>
> Are any folks still trying, or is it pretty much game over here? -Goethe
If so, it's in part due
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>[Since the fix is about reporting, not the count, keeps the current method
>of first/second class vote counting and eligibility,
I was going to suggest separating these two bits if it got any more
complicated.
> the tally of votes need only include a count of up to N
37 matches
Mail list logo
