On Tue, 23 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> Want to know if a certain mechanic of your scam is viable? Don't risk
> getting your WHOLE method vulnerable to the consideration of other players.
> BAM, Super CFJ it and you'll get your doubts cleared in a jiffy.
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/no
Hello, I am Beamy Mays and I'm here for Super CFJs, the Justice specialist,
powered by other
organisms-that-are-generally-capable-of-freely-originating-and-
communicating-independent-thoughts-and-ideas just like you, activated by
Announcements that you and I employ. It's Tautology-approved! You mig
On Mon, 22 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
Why? There are other excuses for having long messages (scam attempts,
for example), and we don’t want people trying to sneak things by in
those either.
Hiding scams in scam attempts? What gall!
Greetings,
Ørjan.
I think making an (informal) table of contents would be good if you need to
make a hugeass message but you're not trying to deliberately hide content.
On Tue, 23 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> Would the following proposal be valid? I'm unsure if the subvoting
> mechanism i'm suggesting will work.
Yes, we've used conditionals like this in proposals before, and no-one
said they *didn't* work, as long as the conditionals were clearly
resolvable. I
Regardless if the Pink Slip is valid, I get the feeling that a Red Card of
some sort ought to be coming forthwith given the level of ire incited, but
my gauge on that front may be inaccurate. Personally, I think Gaelan should
not be trusted with the office of Rulekeepor, and should be removed from
I'm more likely to look at a long message that isn't a report vs one that
is. I think it's valid to be sneaky in long messages, but it's a jerk move
to exploit an office to do so.
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 6:39 PM Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Why? There are other excuses for having long messages (scam
Would the following proposal be valid? I'm unsure if the subvoting
mechanism i'm suggesting will work.
Proposal: "Betterer Pledges, with options, (BBoRWCDaPWDaLoEWSWW)" AI=1.7
Coauthor='G., Gaelan, Aris, 天火狐'
{{{
Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
{{{
Breaking a publicly-m
Why? There are other excuses for having long messages (scam attempts, for
example), and we don’t want people trying to sneak things by in those either.
Gaelan
> On May 22, 2017, at 6:35 PM, Quazie wrote:
>
> I'd be pro this if it was only disallowed within official duties.
>
> On Mon, May 22,
I'd be pro this if it was only disallowed within official duties.
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 18:34 Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I create the power-1 proposal “No Sneakiness” by Gaelan: {
>
> Create a rule “No Sneakiness” with the following text: {
>
> If the rules specify that an action may be performed
On Tue, 23 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> A player CANNOT make any pledge that would create new obligations
> for any other person or office, without the other party's explicit consent.
He he - and you've reinstated contracts.
(not that this is bad).
The alternate reading is that pledges remain
I don’t think the Pink Slip is valid.
Rule 2476/0: "A Pink Slip is a type of Card that is appropriate for abuses of
official power for personal gain. A Pink Slip CANNOT be issued unless the
reason indicates the specific office or offices whose power was abused.”
The only reason being Rulekeepor
> A player CANNOT make any pledge that would create new obligations for any
other person.
I think this should be changed to "A player CANNOT make any pledge that
would create new obligations for any other person or office, without the
other party's explicit consent."
天火狐
On 22 May 2017 at 20:47,
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:36 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 23 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> > Proposal: "Betterer Pledges" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G., Gaelan, Aris'
> > {{{
> > Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
> > {{{
> > A pledge is an agreement between a player and Agora.
>
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:38 PM Quazie wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Proposal: "Betterer Pledges, but because of reasons we can't define a
> pledge without doing a lot of extra work, so we won't" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G.,
> Gaelan, Aris'
> {{{
> Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the
On Tue, 23 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> Proposal: "Betterer Pledges" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G., Gaelan, Aris'
> {{{
> Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
> {{{
> A pledge is an agreement between a player and Agora.
So this single statement is a definition, which means it takes the t
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Quazie wrote:
> Proposal: "Betterer Pledges" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G., Gaelan, Aris'
> {{{
> Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
> {{{
> A pledge is an agreement between a player and Agora.
>
> Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offe
Proposal: "Betterer Pledges" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G., Gaelan, Aris'
{{{
Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
{{{
A pledge is an agreement between a player and Agora.
Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.
If a publicly-made pledge says that the creator of
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 22 May 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>
>> I smell cheese. Lots of cheese. We already have cuttlefish, do we
>> really need to Trap any Mice?
>>
>> Obscure history references aside, this allows someone to make a pledge
>> binding on so
On Mon, 22 May 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Quazie wrote:
> > Proposal: "Pledge Timelines" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G.'
> > {{{
> > Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
> > {{{
> > Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense. If a
> > publ
Proposal: "Better Pledges" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G., Gaelan, Aris'
{{{
Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
{{{
Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense. If a
publicly-made pledge
says that the creator of a pledge will do something, without providing
a time limit,
Proposal: "Timely Pledges v.Lots" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G., Gaelan, Aris'
{{{
Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
{{{
Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense. If a
publicly-made pledge
says that a the creator of a pledge will do something, without
providing a tim
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Quazie wrote:
> Proposal: "Pledge Timelines" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G.'
> {{{
> Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
> {{{
> Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense. If a
> publicly-made pledge
> says that a person will do somethin
Does this ordering look correct:
2017-05-22 - Quazie establishes WTQ
2017-05-22 - CuddleBeam establishes ACP
2017-05-22 - CuddleBeam establishes BGW
2017-05-21 - Quazie changes GOD
2017-05-20 - Quazie establishes QPS
2017-05-20 - Publius Scribonius Scholasticus establishes SSP
2017-05-20 - Gaelan e
Proposal: "Pledge Timelines" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G.'
{{{
Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
{{{
Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense. If a
publicly-made pledge
says that a person will do something, without providing a time limit,
then e SHALL in
a timel
Good point. In common language terms and current legal effect, "I pledge
to do X" is synonymous with "Pledge: I SHALL do X", so why bother with
the latter, as it's more confusingly written?
On the flip side, maybe "I pledge to do X" would be judged (in current
ruleset) to contain an implicit S
I don't know if I've ever seen someone use all-caps SHALL in a pledge.
> On May 22, 2017, at 3:07 PM, Quazie wrote:
>
> Proposal: "Pledge Timelines" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G.'
> {{{
> Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
> {{{
> Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offen
I wouldn't feel bad about doing things - even potentially nnoying things
- unless they actually adversely affect someone. If the rules let you do
a troublesome thing, then it just illustrates we should change the rules.
On 05/22/17 17:27, CuddleBeam wrote:
> Ah, OK. Then if that formats preferabl
Ah, OK. Then if that formats preferable then I don't mind just switching to
that. Sorry for the bother.
I'll restructure my stuff to that then.
(I think I'll divide it into an Agency of "Novelty" Sub-Agencies and
another of "Self-Enhancement" Sub-Agencies).
On Mon, 22 May 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> > Now, sometimes I read things 100% wrong, so I'll take advice from others
> > reading
> > that; if most of you took it as a currently-empty (but forward-looking) set,
> > I'm happy to withdraw the CFJ because that's on me. If it's a split
> > opinion,
>
That'd still be preferable because all those sub agencies would have the
same 24 hour delay for modification, so it'd slow activitu down some.
On May 22, 2017 16:59, "CuddleBeam" wrote:
> Agencies are Turing Complete currently (using its creator as output, the
> Power's text as memory and natura
Proposal: "Pledge Timelines" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G.'
{{{
Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
{{{
Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense. If a
publicly-made pledge
says a person SHALL do something, without providing a time limit, then
e SHALL in
a timely ma
Agencies are Turing Complete currently (using its creator as output, the
Power's text as memory and natural language as operators), so even if the
amount of Agencies were limited, I would still be able to create
"Sub-Agencies" within those Agencies, and then still have an arbitrary
amount of things
I should add that either way we should probably amend the rule and have
a pre-decision period where non-players can be declared, to remove all
ambiguity.
On 05/22/17 16:33, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>> While any individual non-player perso
On 05/22/17 16:33, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>> While any individual non-player person can not begin as options, the class
>> of
>> non-player persons who have become options by announcement is a valid option
>> from the beginning, it jus
On Mon, 22 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> While any individual non-player person can not begin as options, the class of
> non-player persons who have become options by announcement is a valid option
> from the beginning, it just begins empty.
In recent context, "announced" n
On Mon, 22 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-05-22 at 08:12 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 22 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > > - Orange from Proposal 7850;
> > > - Blue from CFJ 3504;
> > > - Violet from earlier in this message;
> > > - Ultraviolet from my recent scam win;
>
Phrase it as the default if no time limit is supplied, not a hard-coded
only option. Like: "if a pledge says a person SHALL do something, without
providing a time limit, then e SHALL in a timely manner in order to keep
the pledge").
The problem with your phrasing: Think about SHALL NOTs instea
I can't figure out the right way to note that a pledge SHALL be fulfilled
in a timely manner, but I only want to imply that the pledge maker SHALL
fulfil their end of the pledge, once the conditional is met, but i want to
do that without being overly perscriptive on pledges.
{{{
Breaking a publicl
On Mon, 2017-05-22 at 08:12 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > - Orange from Proposal 7850;
> > - Blue from CFJ 3504;
> > - Violet from earlier in this message;
> > - Ultraviolet from my recent scam win;
> > - and Cyan from deputising for Tailor last Thursday.
While any individual non-player person can not begin as options, the class
of non-player persons who have become options by announcement is a valid
option from the beginning, it just begins empty.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On
On Mon, 22 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> Also - What's the time scale on fulfilling pledges? I assume in a timely
> manner for
> general pledges like this one, but I am unsure.
There's no Rules-specified time limit and the question's never been asked
for pledges. For Rules-based SHALLs, if there
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I create this proposal "Fast Resolution" by Gaelan with AI 3.1 {
>
> Create rule "Fast Resolution" (Power 3.1) {
>
> For the purposes of this rule, an Agoran Decision's Pertinent Information is
> the set of all information that the vote col
Here's a picture from my client for reference:
https://goo.gl/k21bMf
天火狐
On 22 May 2017 at 15:41, CuddleBeam wrote:
> I think that's a very good idea!
>
> When I read this on the archives or attempt to see the message in my gmail
> interface I see boxes instead of certain characters tho
>
>
I believe, according to 2127, the first half is a valid condition. It is
determinable by information readily available to all players and the value
of the condition will be determinable at the end of voting.
That said, a closer reading of 2127 tells me that the "else" statement
probably has to be
That's right. Specifically, this is an agency that allows people to refer
to it by another name consequence-free.
天火狐
On 22 May 2017 at 15:39, Quazie wrote:
> So this is an agency that allows you to refer to this agency?
>
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 12:33 Josh T wrote:
>
>> I intend to establis
I think that's a very good idea!
When I read this on the archives or attempt to see the message in my gmail
interface I see boxes instead of certain characters tho
I don't believe this is a valid condition.
Gaelan
> On May 22, 2017, at 12:34 PM, caleb vines wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> wrote:
>> True, the CoE having been successful, I hereby initiate a Victory Election
>> with all players, announced n
Given my recent attempt to "announce" OscarMeyr, I wonder if this is
ambiguous? Also, in past, listing "all members of set S" without specifying
the individual set members has been seen as ambiguous, IF it is beyond a
reasonable effort of an average player to dig back and find that list
(as opp
True, the CoE having been successful, I hereby initiate a Victory Election
with all players, announced non-players, and PRESENT as valid options and
the Herald as the vote collector. I would be in favor of all watchers
(Ørjan and others) and G. putting emselves into the race. The ballots
should be
On 05/22/17 14:03, Josh T wrote:
> > I hereby initiate a Victory Election with all players or announced
> non-players as valid options and the Herald as the vote collector. I
> would be in favor of all watchers (Ørjan and others) and G. putting
> emselves into the race. The ballots should be cast
On Mon, 22 May 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> On 05/22/17 12:36, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Is there consensus that "A person can... by announcement" means that
> > only that person can announce for emself? Or that anyone can announce
> > for anyone else?
> I'm fairly certain that they'd have to be announ
Aris - As Promotor do you have any issue with this Proposal? If not I'm
gonna make it a proper proposal.
On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:21 PM Quazie wrote:
> Proto: Trivial Proposals
>
> Create a new rule entitled Trival Proposals AI=1.1 with the following text
> {{{
> Complexity is a switch, tr
Proto-Proposal "Stretched Too Thin"
If at any point a player is the Head of more agencies than twice the number
of registered players [Note, i'd like feedback on this limit] then they are
Stretched Too Thin. If a player is Stretched Too Thin, any attempt by that
player to create a new Agency is I
The ability to intend to do a thing on someone's behalf is entirely
separate from the ability to do it. So even if that was the intended
procedure, nothing in the power enables declaration of intent on
CuddleBeam's behalf.
On 05/22/17 13:40, Quazie wrote:
> If nichdel believes it's unclear that t
On 05/22/17 12:36, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>> People can stop objecting because it is already dead.
> People can remove objections, so it's prudent not to rely on a single
> person's (I only saw one person object to every one of them, thoug
If nichdel believes it's unclear that the 24 hour notice was implied by the
fact that it was changing a power, is that unclear enough to actually make
it ineffective?
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:36 AM Nic Evans wrote:
>
>
> On 05/22/17 12:44, CuddleBeam wrote:
>
>
> Powers: Any Agent may add addi
>
> Title: Big Grafitti Wall (BGW)
>
> Agents: All Players
> Powers: Any Agent may add additional characters to the text content of the
> Powers of this agency as long as such changes keep these Powers functionally
> synonymous to the Powers that this agency had at its creation.
>
>
> Cuddlebeam
Wow - super weird, e-mail client did something super funny there - sorry.
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 10:56 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Er, according to both by sent-mail and inbox return, it went to
> Business... Can
> someone confirm?
> > Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 10:36:16 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: Keri
Er, according to both by sent-mail and inbox return, it went to Business... Can
someone confirm?
> Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 10:36:16 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Kerim Aydin
> To: Agora Business
On Mon, 22 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> Not a public forum - Please resend G.
>
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 10:40
Not a public forum - Please resend G.
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 10:40 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 22 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > People can stop objecting because it is already dead.
>
> People can remove objections, so it's prudent not to rely on a single
> person
People can stop objecting because it is already dead. As to the Victory
Election, G. is not yet an option.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Quazie wrote:
> On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 3:10 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlema
On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 3:10 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I hereby initiate a Victory Election with all players or announced
> non-players as valid options and the Herald as the vote collector. I would
> be in favor of all watchers (Ørjan
Quazie, I believe he would get the slip.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Quazie wrote:
> Grok - you can always point a finger with similar results.
>
> o - If someone were to abuse the power, would you be the one to get the
> Pink Slip as they'd be abusi
Grok - you can always point a finger with similar results.
o - If someone were to abuse the power, would you be the one to get the
Pink Slip as they'd be abusing the power of the Referee on your behalf?
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 09:37 caleb vines wrote:
> I'm not sure if I am familiar enough with
I'm not sure if I am familiar enough with carding or the rules to be
comfortable as an agent of a Referee Agency. But I am sure that I'd rather
have the power to do something and not use it than the inverse.
I'm interested in being an Agent.
-grok
On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Owen Jacobson
I think due to ratification I still got my yellow card (bankruptcy), and G.
Still got eir red card (Dive)
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 00:15 Quazie wrote:
> It turns out the following things are oddly true:
>
> 1 - The Prime Minister is unable to Dive.
>
> 2 - Bankruptcy does not lead to Yellow Cards.
On Mon, 22 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> - Orange from Proposal 7850;
> - Blue from CFJ 3504;
> - Violet from earlier in this message;
> - Ultraviolet from my recent scam win;
> - and Cyan from deputising for Tailor last Thursday.
How many ribbons from one scam? Just give yourself the damn ribb
I plan on amending after the first week or so to change some time values,
some numerical values, etc. as the market allows. This is a rough copy.
I'll put the grammatical note in the ol' steel trap.
also, 1 shiny is a lot of money to me. It's infinity percent more money
than I have now, at least.
I like this recent spat of Trust Token actions. I was intending on
trying to repeal them, but we'll see if these agencies add some activity
to them first.
On 05/22/17 09:53, caleb vines wrote:
> I intend to establish the following Agency in 24 hours:
>
> Name: grok's Favorite Player (gFP)
>
> Pow
One could lead to the other, at least with our ruleset now. An unknown public
forum is an excellent place to win by apathy!
I think we need a rule against deliberately hidden announcements.
Gaelan
> On May 22, 2017, at 12:37 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2017-05-22 at 01:46 -0400, Owen
CoE Quazie gave me a shiny if there was any doubt that I was a player. Given
the CFJ, I believe such doubt did exist.
Gaelan
> On May 21, 2017, at 10:54 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
> Secretary's Weekly Report
>
> Date of this report: Sun, 21 May 2017
> Date of last report: Sun, 14 May 2017
>
On Mon, 2017-05-22 at 01:46 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> On May 21, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> > The following section is not a portion of the report:
> > For the purposes of this section, The Sentence is “I intend,
> > without objection, to declare [word], specifying myself.”
>
NtTpF
On Mon, 22 May 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
On May 20, 2017, at 3:47 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
On Sat, 2017-05-20 at 07:04 +, Quazie wrote:
I CFJ on the following Two Linked Statements:
It is possible to create an agency such that its acronym contains at least
one integer symbol (e.g. 0
It turns out the following things are oddly true:
1 - The Prime Minister is unable to Dive.
2 - Bankruptcy does not lead to Yellow Cards.
Both of these issues are due to the awarding of cards being in rules that
are below 1.7 power, i'll be attempting to fix that shortly, please let me
know if a
On May 20, 2017, at 3:47 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-05-20 at 07:04 +, Quazie wrote:
>> I CFJ on the following Two Linked Statements:
>> It is possible to create an agency such that its acronym contains at least
>> one integer symbol (e.g. 0-9).
>> It is possible to create an agency
> On May 22, 2017, at 2:58 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 22 May 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> Oy. What a hash I’ve made, all by failing to search for a single term.
>
> Yah, that rule has two fairly buried definitions; the "secured" definition
> is also pretty hidden if you ask me.
77 matches
Mail list logo
