DIS: Re: BUS: Deputised resolution of proposal 6072

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > Deputising for the Assessor, I publish the following document: Does it need the proposal text? -- Taral "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown

Re: DIS: Worries about the Notary wiki

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 3:58 AM, Alex Smith wrote: > I strongly suggest that we move to a contract-maintenance system that > does not make it legally impossible for the Notary to do their job. Any > ideas? I can put a wiki on agoranomic.org... -- Taral "Please let me know if there's any furthe

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Grand Poobah] caste() report

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Benjamin Schultz wrote: SAVAGE (Voting Limit: 0) >>> (All others not yet listed, as well as:) >>> Warrigal >> >> Are you sure? >> >> --Warrigal > > > Partially. I've been flooded with emails each time I log in, so I may have > missed something. What did I m

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Grand Poobah] caste() report

On Feb 18, 2009, at 7:11 PM, Warrigal wrote: On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Benjamin Schultz wrote: SAVAGE (Voting Limit: 0) (All others not yet listed, as well as:) Warrigal Are you sure? --Warrigal Partially. I've been flooded with emails each time I log in, so I may have misse

DIS: Re: OFF: [Grand Poobah] caste() report

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Benjamin Schultz wrote: > SAVAGE (Voting Limit: 0) > (All others not yet listed, as well as:) > Warrigal Are you sure? --Warrigal

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Protect Our Rights

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > Sgeo wrote: > >> How do you easily differntiate from "Agora is not a nomic because >> nothing can remove the right to deregister" and "Agora is not a nomic >> because it's horribly broken and literally unplayable"? > > There's a big difference be

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Protect Our Rights

Sgeo wrote: > How do you easily differntiate from "Agora is not a nomic because > nothing can remove the right to deregister" and "Agora is not a nomic > because it's horribly broken and literally unplayable"? There's a big difference between "nothing can remove" and "nothing at Power < 3 can rem

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Protect Our Rights

On Feb 18, 2009, at 6:25 PM, Alex Smith wrote: On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 18:20 -0500, Benjamin Schultz wrote: "... always dance a powerful dance." But are /you/ a Marvy? [See also CFJ 1881.] -- ais523 I was once. I'd have to dig through a-b archives to find out when. - Benjamin Schultz KE

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Protect Our Rights

On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 18:20 -0500, Benjamin Schultz wrote: > "... always dance a powerful dance." But are /you/ a Marvy? [See also CFJ 1881.] -- ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Protect Our Rights

On Feb 18, 2009, at 5:59 PM, Alex Smith wrote: On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 16:21 -0600, Aaron Goldfein wrote: Nevertheless, some new rule could be passed which violates the rights, which should, above all, be held as the most important. It seems foolish to have a power 4 designation and not use it

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Protect Our Rights

On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 16:21 -0600, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > Nevertheless, some new rule could be passed which violates the rights, > which should, above all, be held as the most important. It seems > foolish to have a power 4 designation and not use it for the most > fundamentally important rule. N

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Protect Our Rights

On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 17:15 -0500, Warrigal wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Aaron Goldfein > wrote: > > Proposal: Protect Our Rights (AI = 4) > > > > Increase the power of Rule 101 (The Rights of Agorans) from power 3 to power > > 4. > > AI = 3 is sufficient, as power-3 instruments are

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Protect Our Rights

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Sgeo wrote: >> >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Aaron Goldfein >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Warrigal wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Aaron Goldfein >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Protect Our Rights

2009/2/18 Aaron Goldfein : > I think what's most important of all is specifically the right to > deregister. It would be horribly bad if we as players were trapped in this > game forever. And also, Agora need not be a nomic to continue being a game. If Agora ever stopped being a nomic, I think its

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Protect Our Rights

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > I think what's most important of all is specifically the right to > deregister. It would be horribly bad if we as players were trapped in this > game forever. I declare "It's A Trap Nomic" to be officially open. See rules 104 and 113. 'Imm

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Protect Our Rights

Yally wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Warrigal > wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Aaron Goldfein > mailto:aarongoldf...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Proposal: Protect Our Rights (AI = 4) > > > > Increase the power of Rule 101 (The

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Protect Our Rights

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Sgeo wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Aaron Goldfein > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Warrigal > > > > wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Aaron Goldfein < > aarongoldf...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > Proposal: Protec

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Protect Our Rights

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Warrigal wrote: >> >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Aaron Goldfein >> wrote: >> > Proposal: Protect Our Rights (AI = 4) >> > >> > Increase the power of Rule 101 (The Rights of Agorans) from power 3 t

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Protect Our Rights

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Warrigal > wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Aaron Goldfein > wrote: > > Proposal: Protect Our Rights (AI = 4) > > > > Increase the power of Rule 101 (The Rights of Agorans) from power 3 to > power > > 4. > > > > -Yally > > AI = 3 is sufficient, as power-

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Protect Our Rights

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > Proposal: Protect Our Rights (AI = 4) > > Increase the power of Rule 101 (The Rights of Agorans) from power 3 to power > 4. > > -Yally AI = 3 is sufficient, as power-3 instruments are unrestricted. --Warrigal

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 6109-6115

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Not exactly. Lindrum's proponents and opponents worked to ensure that > the "restart" converged the states. But you do point to something that > was a problem the whole time: the Wizards were also players, with a > huge amount of disproporti

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 6109-6115

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Elliott Hird wrote: > 2009/2/18 Kerim Aydin : >> Standing precedent is that it split the game into two wholly internally >> consistent interpretations, one that it worked, one that it didn't work. >> Each state (internally) could declare itself valid. So, UNDECIDABLE, >> whic

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 6109-6115

2009/2/18 Kerim Aydin : > Standing precedent is that it split the game into two wholly internally > consistent interpretations, one that it worked, one that it didn't work. > Each state (internally) could declare itself valid. So, UNDECIDABLE, > which required a metagame reunification. > > Back wh

Re: DIS: Worries about the Notary wiki

ais523 wrote: > I'm worried that the Notary wiki actually makes it real-world legally > impossible for me to do my job as Notary. > > The Wikidot terms of service prevent any form of automatic scraping that > isn't specifically permitted by Wikidot themselves: > {{{ > 6. any automated use of the

Re: DIS: Worries about the Notary wiki

Alex Smith wrote: > {{{ > this does not include RSS feeds access > }}} Is it possible to somehow make the RSS feed(s) useful for scraping? Or maybe Normish could host it. There's already a wiki set up :P signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 6109-6115

On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 10:17 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote: > ais523 wrote: > > > Well, one thing that worries me is that with democratisation possible > > while voting isn't, the Assessor gets quite a lot of power over whether > > ordinary proposals are adopted or not. (I am reminded of proposal 5707; >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 6109-6115

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Elliott Hird wrote: > Standing precedent is that LW didn't work, right? I've never seen a copy > of the rules at the time so it'd be hard to tell... Standing precedent is that it split the game into two wholly internally consistent interpretations, one that it worked, one tha

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 6109-6115

ais523 wrote: > Well, one thing that worries me is that with democratisation possible > while voting isn't, the Assessor gets quite a lot of power over whether > ordinary proposals are adopted or not. (I am reminded of proposal 5707; > incidentally, it could have been defeated with 2 support at pr

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Appeal 2356a

Goethe wrote: > On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> I move to REMAND 2356a. It should be overturned based on the Defendant's >>> arguments (to which the Judge agrees) but it's unfair to punish the >>> judge when the Defendant did

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 6109-6115

2009/2/18 Kerim Aydin : > There was a Second Coming in 2001, when Lindrum, eir arch-enemy Evantine, > and myself in the middle, (re-?)registered within a week of each other, > and played for 8-9 months. Several other former Nomic Worlders were > still among us, then. > > It was known at the time a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Appeal 2356a

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> I move to REMAND 2356a. It should be overturned based on the Defendant's >> arguments (to which the Judge agrees) but it's unfair to punish the >> judge when the Defendant did not provide eir

DIS: Re: BUS: Appeal 2356a

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I move to REMAND 2356a. It should be overturned based on the Defendant's > arguments (to which the Judge agrees) but it's unfair to punish the > judge when the Defendant did not provide eir argument in a timely > manner. -Goethe I made th

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 6109-6115

On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 08:07 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > > Well, one thing that worries me is that with democratisation possible > > while voting isn't, the Assessor gets quite a lot of power over whether > > ordinary proposals are adopted or not. (I am remin

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 6109-6115

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Elliott Hird wrote: > 2009/2/18 Kerim Aydin : >> >> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote: 6109 D 1 3.0 comex Right to vote >>> PRESENT. It's unclear how this would interact with the Penrose-Banzhaf >>> or Shapley-Shubik power indices. >> >> Heh. Actua

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 6109-6115

On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 07:45 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > >> 6115 O 1 1.0 Murphy Get on with it! > > AGAINSTx5, gives the Assessor /even more/ power over timing scams than e > > currently does. (I'm actually considering writing proposals to give >

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement, CFJ 2361

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > The rules don't define what a reward or punishment is directly, although > they strongly imply that non-DISCHARGE criminal sentences are a form of > punishment, and the title of rule 2234 (which is not legally binding but > provides evidence of game custom)

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 6109-6115

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote: >> 6115 O 1 1.0 Murphy Get on with it! > AGAINSTx5, gives the Assessor /even more/ power over timing scams than e > currently does. (I'm actually considering writing proposals to give > everyone a fair chance at Assessor-related timing scams, rat

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 6109-6115

2009/2/18 Kerim Aydin : > > On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote: >>> 6109 D 1 3.0 comex Right to vote >> PRESENT. It's unclear how this would interact with the Penrose-Banzhaf >> or Shapley-Shubik power indices. > > Heh. Actually calculated these for an Agoran voting distribut

DIS: Re: agora-official digest, Vol 1 #2461 - 5 msgs

> > > chamber: O = Ordinary; D = Democratic > interest: 0-3 = interest index > > Proposal ID numbers: > highest orderly: 6115 > disorderly: none > > Proposal pool: empty > > }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{ > > Proposal 6109 (Democratic, AI=3.0, Inter

DIS: Worries about the Notary wiki

I'm worried that the Notary wiki actually makes it real-world legally impossible for me to do my job as Notary. The Wikidot terms of service prevent any form of automatic scraping that isn't specifically permitted by Wikidot themselves: {{{ 6. any automated use of the Services that is not official