On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 2:53 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proto-contract: Agora Smock Exchange
>
> [snip]
I suppose there's no chance of going with something more speculative?
e.g., Prices are determined exclusively by buyers and sellers (more
buys -> higher price etc.), and weekly
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Jamie Dallaire wrote:
> Would anyone be interested in playing the following, based on Robert
> Axelrod's and WD Hamilton's "The Evolution of Cooperation"? (see links
> below)
I heartily support this product and/or service.
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 10:24 PM, Jamie Dallaire
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cross posting because I figure there could be interest on both sides. If
> need be this can be a Werewolves-like endeavour.
>
> Would anyone be interested in playing the following, based on Robert
> Axelrod's and WD Hamil
Cross posting because I figure there could be interest on both sides. If
need be this can be a Werewolves-like endeavour.
Would anyone be interested in playing the following, based on Robert
Axelrod's and WD Hamilton's "The Evolution of Cooperation"? (see links
below)
Basically the subgame would
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 10:03 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Test.
I can't really test this myself because the B lists don't echo
message. For anyone subscribed to both a-d and s-d: Did you receive a
single message, or multiple? If the latter then what were the
subjects of the messages?
Test.
Elliott Hird wrote:
A round later...
Yes, I didn't get to my email until later. I'm killing avpx from beyond
the grave.
--
--
0x44;
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 8:39 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I object, as Murphy's arguments and my response point out that this is
> unreasonable.
Which arguments? root clarified that the most recent time that this
was defined was not February 2008 but December 2007. Indeed, a
"Democr
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 17:32, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rule 101 (power 1):
[snip]
> Every actor has the right to not be considered bound by an agreement,
> or an amendment to an agreement, which e has not had the reasonable
> opportunity to review.
Maybe you want to legisilate whether
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 13:21, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I RBoA-withdraw two 8 crops.
> I PBA-deposit an X crop.
> I PBA-withdraw a 2 crop.
>
> I harvest the following CFJ numbers for 2 WRV each:
> 2274
> 2275 (using an X as a 2)
> 2276 (using two X as 2s and one X as 7)
>
> I har
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 8:33 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It is unreasonable to extrapolate the chamber of a proposal (as
>> distinguished from its decision) from AI, as AI serves no purpose
>> chamber-wise other than
Rule 101 (power 1):
"The rules may define persons as having certain rights. Defining
rights is secured. No interpretation of any rule or binding agreement
may substantially limit or remove a person's defined rights, except
through the explicit and legal amendment of this rule. This rule takes
prec
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 11:44, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At http://agora.eso-std.org/pba-report.txt now, will change when
> I get an HTML interfacey thingy to that.
>
>From your report:
2008-11-18 19:32 -- PNP deposits a 2 crop for ^29.
The above fails since the PNP doesn't have a
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It was not explicitly specified, as required.
Please point out the word "explicitly" in R1504. It seems to be
absent from my copy.
-root
On 21/11/2008, 0x44 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That's 3 out of 5. (Also updating this to B for completeness.)
>>>
>>
>> I vote to lynch avpx as well.
>>
> I vote to lynch avpx also, even tho
On 21/11/2008, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 20 Nov 2008, at 23:44, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>
>>> Did you attempt to use your scam powers to take yourself out of
>>> the chokey? Such an attempt would have failed if
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 07:05, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Protection Racket has been in a whirlwind lately; I ask BobTHJ or
> similar to give me the text if they know it as I am entirely unsure
> about its state and ais523 did not track the amendments for some reason.
>
I know i
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 20 Nov 2008, at 23:44, Ed Murphy wrote:
>
>> Did you attempt to use your scam powers to take yourself out of
>> the chokey? Such an attempt would have failed if your original
>> in-the-chokey status kept your voting limi
root wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2260a
>>>
>>> Appeal 2260a ===
On 20 Nov 2008, at 23:44, Ed Murphy wrote:
Did you attempt to use your scam powers to take yourself out of
the chokey? Such an attempt would have failed if your original
in-the-chokey status kept your voting limits below 51.
/me drops bomb of crap gamestate
crim cfjs have to specify the mess
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ehird wrote:
>
>> On 20 Nov 2008, at 22:44, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>
>>> From the CotC's report:
>>
>> Sorry, nope.
>
> Did you attempt to use your scam powers to take yourself out of
> the chokey? Such an attempt would have failed
Goethe wrote:
> Wasn't it Peter Suber who said (paraphrasing) "anyone who agrees to
> a Rules change mechanism that's anything other than unanimous deserves
> what they get"? -G.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/nomic.htm
"After Nomic was first published in Scientific American, a German
ehird wrote:
> On 20 Nov 2008, at 22:44, Ed Murphy wrote:
>
>> From the CotC's report:
>
> Sorry, nope.
Did you attempt to use your scam powers to take yourself out of
the chokey? Such an attempt would have failed if your original
in-the-chokey status kept your voting limits below 51.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> Or do you count this as a potential escalator? Seems unlikely to me.
Not really, the conflict is either between two power-2 rules or between
two power-3 rules, so no power-resolved conflicts. The escalator has been
at least partially disabled by the new R754
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm saying in mathematical definitional terms VL ~ {Caste} by definition.
>> VL is defined as a number in the range {Caste}. Changing Caste changes
>> VL's allowed range and VL can't be
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> "I just can't find that concept in the rules in a way that would
> overrule R754. Further actions have a lower precedence than
> definitions" seems to be the core of your whole argument. To me, though,
> nowhere does R754 say that definitions take preceden
On 20 Nov 2008, at 23:21, Roger Hicks wrote:
Oopsmy reports have been using the wrong contract language. Here
is the correct language for section 3:
publish a report so that it actually happens.
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 16:18, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why not just vote SELL(1 coin)?
>>
>> Vote Market allows tickets of any currency.
>
> Not last time I checked. Is there an online report that's more
> up-t
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 16:17, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 20 Nov 2008, at 23:02, Roger Hicks wrote:
>
>> Vote Market allows tickets of any currency.
>
>
> 3. At any time a party CAN post a Sell Ticket by announcement. A Sell
> Ticket must include:
> * A description of an action th
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2260a
>>
>> Appeal 2260a
>
> I
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why not just vote SELL(1 coin)?
>
> Vote Market allows tickets of any currency.
Not last time I checked. Is there an online report that's more
up-to-date than the one that says I still have 80 VP?
--Warrigal
On 20 Nov 2008, at 23:02, Roger Hicks wrote:
Vote Market allows tickets of any currency.
3. At any time a party CAN post a Sell Ticket by announcement. A Sell
Ticket must include:
* A description of an action that the party is able to take.
* A cost in VP
On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 23:05 +, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 20 Nov 2008, at 23:02, Roger Hicks wrote:
>
> > Vote Market allows tickets of any currency.
>
> Oh. I leave Coin Votes.
>
> Awesome, though! A coin market!
>
> P.S. rename Vote Market to just Market. :P
I've used this: both in woggle'
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, Pavitra wrote:
> On Tuesday 18 November 2008 02:46:42 am Alexander Smith wrote:
>> Ugh, probably a bug. It's an interesting question, though; if a
>> contract specifies horrible penalties for leaving if it's amended,
>> is that a good thing? Maybe we should relax this a bit a
On 20 Nov 2008, at 23:02, Roger Hicks wrote:
Vote Market allows tickets of any currency.
Oh. I leave Coin Votes.
Awesome, though! A coin market!
P.S. rename Vote Market to just Market. :P
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm saying in mathematical definitional terms VL ~ {Caste} by definition.
> VL is defined as a number in the range {Caste}. Changing Caste changes
> VL's allowed range and VL can't be changed outside of the range {Caste}.
>
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 16:00, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 20 Nov 2008, at 22:58, Elliott Hird wrote:
>
>> I agree to the following:
>> {
>> This is a public contract named "Coin Votes".
>>
>> CELL(N) is a conditional vote.
>>
Why not just vote SELL(1 coin)?
Vote Market allows t
On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 14:11 -0800, Kerim Aydin almost wrote (with rule
number typos corrected):
> I say that VL for a particular OD is a R754(2) Rules-defined term and
> that R2156 clearly defines VLOD. It doesn't say "is set to" or "is
> initially" but it is a Rules-based term definition "VLOD *i
On Tuesday 18 November 2008 02:46:42 am Alexander Smith wrote:
> Pavitra wrote:
> > ais523 wrote:
> > > * There was a period lasting at least 4 days during which
> > > the person was aware of or could easily have found out that an
> > > attempt or intent to make that amendment was being made,
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> So you're arguing that increasing a voting limit means increasing
> caste which is secured? That seems like a stretch to me... "in X case
> the voting limit is caste [in other cases the voting limit is
> something else]" + "increase voting limit" = "increase ca
On 20 Nov 2008, at 22:44, Ed Murphy wrote:
From the CotC's report:
Sorry, nope.
comex wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I support. The judge doesn't even address the issue of whether or not
>> the increases are affected by chokey.
>
> ehird is not in the chokey.
>From the CotC's report:
Sentences (active between dates shown)
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I support. The judge doesn't even address the issue of whether or not
> the increases are affected by chokey.
If they work, they're clearly not. Only the rule defining caste-based
voting limit even mentions the chokey.
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I support. The judge doesn't even address the issue of whether or not
> the increases are affected by chokey.
ehird is not in the chokey.
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
>> There isn't a problem here: R1586 isn't triggered at all. It's to do
>> with things such as Contracts, which are rules-defined and exist outside
>> the rules somehow, and which can
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> (1) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of
> a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is
> inconsequential in all forms of communication, as long as
> the difference does not create an amb
On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 14:11 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> > There isn't a problem here: R1586 isn't triggered at all. It's to do
> > with things such as Contracts, which are rules-defined and exist outside
> > the rules somehow, and which can continue to exist
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> There isn't a problem here: R1586 isn't triggered at all. It's to do
> with things such as Contracts, which are rules-defined and exist outside
> the rules somehow, and which can continue to exist when the contract
> rules are amended.
As I said, I apologi
On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 13:48 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> It's R754 that says a term defined in the rules is tied to its definition,
> and that its definition takes precedence. So if R2126 causes something to
> take a value outside its defined range, it conflicts with R754. I hope, by
> your curre
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> Implicit claims don't affect precedence; R1030 explicitly requires
> precedence claims to be explicit. There is definitely no comparison of
> strength of implicit claims! If there is a claim on both sides, or a
> claim on neither side, go numerical; and R21
On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 13:41 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> > This argument fails utterly: quote the first half of that sentence
> > {{{
> > If the documents defining an entity are amended such that they
> > still define that entity but with different
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> This argument fails utterly: quote the first half of that sentence
> {{{
> If the documents defining an entity are amended such that they
> still define that entity but with different properties,
> }}}
> and the then clause fails to apply. No way
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> Imagine R1 saying "Goethe CAN deregister by paying
> 1 Stem" and R2 saying "Goethe CANNOT deregister";
Both of these are claims on what can and can't be done by an action,
and neither defines the state of (de)registration. It's a bad example.
A better e
On 20 Nov 2008, at 20:33, Ian Kelly wrote:
I agree it's too obvious. ehird was quick to second the vote
against avpx.
Actually, I realised that inactives will be gotten rid of anyway, and
was
checking my mail at the time. So, might as well not vote for someone who
won't be lynched.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I recommend REMAND with instructions to explicitly evaluate the two
>> competing interpretations:
>>
>> +S) 2126 takes precedence, so 2156 implicitly defines the initial
>> limit and
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 0x44 has been killed. The second night phase ends; the third
>> day phase begins.
>>
>> The remaining townspersons are:
>> root, Wooble, ais523, eh
Begin forwarded message:
From: Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 20 November 2008 20:27:27 GMT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [s-b] BUS: Werewolf session #2 update
On 20 Nov 2008, at 20:21, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I vote for ehird, although avpx's attempt at giving em power of
attorn
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ais523, ehird, Pavitra, Wooble, and comex are all voting to lynch
> avpx. That's 5 out of 5, so avpx dies. (E was one of the two
> werewolves.)
Ugh, I hope there's at least one active werewolf.
Wooble wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> *5967 O1 1.0 Murphy Fix
>
> Looks like a quote-handling bug in your script.
*looks* Aha, the script scrapes the title correctly, but was feeding it
to the original web form without replacing quotes
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 2:30 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ais523, ehird, Pavitra, Wooble, and comex are all voting to lynch
>> avpx. That's 5 out of 5, so avpx dies. (E was one of the two
>> werewolves.)
>
> Ugh, I
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> *5967 O1 1.0 Murphy Fix
Looks like a quote-handling bug in your script.
I proto-propose the following AI=2 proposal, "Party Politics":
{
Create a new Power 2 rule entitled "Cliques" with the following text:
Clique leader is a public contract switch, tracked by the
Notary, with a default value of 'none', and a set of possible
values which consists of
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I recommend REMAND with instructions to explicitly evaluate the two
> competing interpretations:
>
> +S) 2126 takes precedence, so 2156 implicitly defines the initial
> limit and 2126's increases stick.
>
> -S) Even tho
Pavitra wrote:
> I also support. The judgement of these CFJs should at least have
> addressed this line of argument.
I recommend REMAND with instructions to explicitly evaluate the two
competing interpretations:
+S) 2126 takes precedence, so 2156 implicitly defines the initial
limit and
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I intend to appeal this with 2 support. Increasing a player's voting
>> limit on a decision causes it to be higher than it otherwise would have
>>
On 20 Nov 2008, at 16:40, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
R2156 says "the voting limit is" not "the voting limit defaults to" or
"begins at, subject to modification"
"is" could be interpreted, and IMO in the prescense of the one-offs
rule,
should be interpreted as "is set to".
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend to appeal this with 2 support. Increasing a player's voting
> limit on a decision causes it to be higher than it otherwise would have
> been. Eir voting limit was 1, increased by 50 (or however many it was, I
> can't
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 10:36 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 20 Nov 2008, at 16:31, Alex Smith wrote:
>
>> I intend to appeal this with 2 support. Increasing a player's voting
>> limit on a decision causes it to be higher than it otherwise would have
>> been. Eir voting limit was
On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 10:27 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> This message serves to resolve the Agoran Decision to choose the
> holder of the Clerk of the Courts office. The option selected by
> Agora is .
This is entirely incorrect. Surely it was a tie?
--
ais523
On 19 Nov 2008, at 14:05, Elliott Hird wrote:
The Protection Racket has been in a whirlwind lately; I ask BobTHJ or
similar to give me the text if they know it as I am entirely unsure
about its state and ais523 did not track the amendments for some
reason.
OK, I know about all contracts apar
70 matches
Mail list logo
