Entreco Rule 8, Idealism:
The state of Entreco is determined by what its players believe that it is.
> The state of the game can be changed by the consensus (including
> unintentionally, if a mistake is made in applying the rules, and the
> mistake is not caught quickly).
Yowsers. What is the st
On 12 July 2013 09:59, omd wrote:
>
> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
>
> Proposal 7520 (AI=3, PF=Y0, Ordinary) by omd
> Grammar fixes
>
> Amend Rule 217 (Interpreting the Rules) by replacing:
>
> Differences in spelling, grammar, capitalization, white
On 11 July 2013 13:21, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I think we're on the same page then, actually. I mentioned 'punishment'
> as a
> factor, but I didn't mean it to be the only one. E.g. one looks at the
> whole
> package to see if the effect on speech is particularly meaningful, can
> probably
> com
On 11 July 2013 12:55, Steven Gardner wrote:
> On 11 July 2013 12:37, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>>
>> There are certain Rules that limit certain types of speech (e.g. Illegal
>> to mislead in
>> certain ways, reveal private actions). Are those also unenforceable, y
On 11 July 2013 12:37, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> There are certain Rules that limit certain types of speech (e.g. Illegal
> to mislead in
> certain ways, reveal private actions). Are those also unenforceable, you
> think?
>
No. As you noted yourself, limiting certain kinds of speech does not
infri
On 11 July 2013 05:13, John Smith wrote:
> I CfJ on "Would paying omd to not post on the public forums as part of a
> legally binding agreement between myself and omd cause a violation of Rule
> 101?"
>
When you say 'legally binding', are you referring to Agoran, or US law (or
the law of some ot
The legal adequacy of this I will leave to actual players to determine; as
a kibitzer I merely wished to note that it is an artistic triumph. Bravo,
Fool!
On 10 July 2013 11:50, Fool wrote:
>
> HER FELINE MAJESTY DAVY I
> versus
> TANNER SWETT (aka MACHIAVELLI)
>
>
>
> Charles Walker on beh
Level confusion, Goethe. The Statement "Roujo committed the Class-3 Crime
of Hazing." is not frivolous; it alleges that Roujo frivolously CFJed on
the success of a player's attempt to register.
On 9 July 2013 10:10, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 9 Jul 2013, Steven G
09:26, Steven Gardner wrote:
> On 9 July 2013 04:16, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Don't think CFJ about a registration attempt to discussion list is
>> frivolous though :P
>>
>
> According to the OED, 'frivolous' has a special legal sense meaning
> 'manifestl
On 9 July 2013 04:16, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Don't think CFJ about a registration attempt to discussion list is
> frivolous though :P
>
According to the OED, 'frivolous' has a special legal sense meaning
'manifestly insufficient or futile'. Since it is well established in law
and precedent -- really
R2357:
An Elder is a first-class player who has been registered
continuously for at least 32 days, and also registered for at
least 128 days total (not necessarily contiguously).
I was registered continuously from 1 July 1994 until 19 June 2004. If I
registered now, would I ins
Class-3 Hazing, Roujo?
On 8 July 2013 10:35, Jonathan Rouillard wrote:
> Welcome! =D
>
> I submit the following CFJ to the Ambassador-at-Large: { Lindar is a
> player. }
>
> Arguments: While he claimed intent to register, he did not submit it
> to the right forum. Something something R101, someth
ok, got it now. only oerjan around though atm. No surprise, really.
On 7 July 2013 21:00, Steven Gardner wrote:
> OK, I think I've joined ##nomic, but I can't see a way to chat.
>
>
> On 7 July 2013 14:23, Alex Smith wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 2013-07-06 at 21:13 -0700
OK, I think I've joined ##nomic, but I can't see a way to chat.
On 7 July 2013 14:23, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-07-06 at 21:13 -0700, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2013-07-07 at 13:45 +1000, St
Thanks, Alex and Aaron. Will anyone else be there? It's a shocking time for
Americans.
On 7 July 2013 14:13, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Sun, 2013-07-07 at 13:45 +1000, Steven Gardner wrote:
> >> I intend to be aroun
I intend to be around for this chat session, in a little under 7.5 hours'
time. Can someone please remind me how to join this session? I don't really
grok irc.
On 5 July 2013 06:02, Charles Walker wrote:
> There will be an irc session in ##nomic (hopefully with a few
> old-timers) at 1100 UTC, S
My dim recollection is that it took a kind of high level scam (in the sense
of loophole exploitation, there was no attempt to win) to move away from
the Mutable/Immutable distinction. But we didn't get straight to the Power
system - that came later. The intermediate stage involved the definition of
I read the chat logs, and found in it the link to Michael Norrish's Nomic
World page, and so the summaries I wrote of the first six games (which
turned out to be the only six games) of Nomic World, which I hadn't thought
about for 20 years. That was a blast!
The reason that Nomic World died was th
Yes, please.
--
Steve Gardner
via mobile
On 1 Jul 2013 19:33, "Charles Walker" wrote:
> If anyone wants them, let me know.
>
> -- Walker
>
On 1 July 2013 14:35, Chuck Carroll wrote:
> ** **
>
> Thanks to all the players, especially my fellow winners, and many many
> thanks to Fool for running such an enjoyable game. Like others have
> mentioned, I like the idea of a Nomic with a defined endpoint (being well
> aware, of course, that
to the ancients.
I sent the following message to Goethe shortly after I registered:
From: Steven Gardner
> Date: 25 June 2013 09:18
> Subject: What is to be done?
> To: ke...@u.washington.edu
>
> Hi Kerim. Or perhaps that should be Goethe.
> I have no plans at all, and really no ide
Would love to, but time to get up and make breakfast for the boys.
--
Steve Gardner
via mobile
On 1 Jul 2013 08:37, "Charles Walker" wrote:
> On 30 June 2013 23:32, Steven Gardner wrote:
> > From: "Peter Suber"
> > Date: 1 Jul 2013 07:13
> > Subject: R
From: "Peter Suber"
Date: 1 Jul 2013 07:13
Subject: Re: Agora Nomic celebrates 20 years
To: "Steven Gardner"
Cc:
>
>
> Dear Agoranomicists,
>
> Congratulations on your 20 year game of Nomic. To my knowledge, you're
taking part in the longest-running game
Wait though: 9pm in Melbourne is 11am in London, but 4am in Los Angeles and
7am in New York. Fine for Europeans, but terrible for Americans. Aren't
most of the currently registered Agoran players Americans?
On 1 July 2013 00:02, Charles Walker wrote:
> On 30 June 2013 14:48, Steven
For my part, 9pm local time (1100 UTC), after the kids are in bed, is when
I'm more likely to have time to chat.
But tomorrow (Monday) night I'll probably be out seeing a friend, and
Tuesday I'm leaving for a family holiday for 5 days and I'm unlikely to
have internet access. So unless you're will
On 29 June 2013 22:37, Fool wrote:
> It has been my pleasure to be your Speaker for this bit of fast-paced
> nonsense. I discharge my last formal duty by including the final ruleset
> below. I will also post an end-of-game statement, and I encourage other
> players to do likewise.
>
> Thanks for
Much as I'd love to chat with you all over irc, that's 7am Monday morning
Melbourne time, so I won't be able to join you :(
On 30 June 2013 00:03, Charles Walker wrote:
> There will be an irc session in celebration of Agora's birthday in the
> ##nomic channel on Sunday 30th June (tomorrow) start
Hi Wes! And how are you?
--
Steve Gardner
via mobile
On 29 Jun 2013 11:44, "Wes Contreras" wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Steven Gardner
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello old friend! I thought of you several times today. How are you?
>
> It's like a reuni
Gratuitous arguments:
1. By this logic, I could claim that any event in the game - for example,
this CFJ being judged FALSE, or my own failure to win the game -
constitutes a penalty worse than losing and so cannot be imposed.
2. Even accepting that the loss of the game is a humiliation worse tha
I call for Judgement on the following statement: Blob has not forfeited.
Arguments: Punishing Blob with forfeiture for the failure of proposal 346
to pass is a retroactive application of R345, and is thus blocked by R108.
This is so because R345 was not in effect when Blob proposed P346.
--
Steve
28/06/2013 9:42 AM, Steven Gardner wrote:
>
>>
>> The point of a ban on retroactive application of a rule, especially one
>> which, like R345, criminalises a certain action, is to avoid a
>> particularly galling kind of injustice: namely, that people do things
>> which t
H. Speaker,
I currently have 277 points.
Am I tempted to sit tight and try for the individual win? Not for a moment.
I cast 5 additional votes for proposal 364, thereby destroying 250 points.
--
Steve Gardner
via mobile
Hello old friend! I thought of you several times today. How are you?
On 28 June 2013 23:58, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> Sometimes you just have to be there.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
--
Steve Gardner
Research Grants Development
Faculty of Business and Economics
Monash University, Caulfield campus
On 28 June 2013 10:47, Fool wrote:
> On 27/06/2013 8:43 PM, Steven Gardner wrote:
>
>> On 28 June 2013 10:36, Fool > <mailto:fool1...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> In this case, the effect was your forfeiture (or requirement to
>> forfeit).
uber designed his Initial Set for over the table play, so these issues
simply never came up for him. That is why initial rulesets based largely on
his initial set are actually very poorly designed for mailing-list based
play.
On 28 June 2013 22:27, Charles Walker wrote:
> On 28 June 2013 05:4
H. Speaker,
I submit the following Proposal:
===
If there is exactly one Rule which was initially numbered 112, then that
Rule is amended to Read:
> The game ends at 00:04:30 UTC +1200 on June 30th, 2013, or at the time
when all adopted proposals whose voting periods concluded before that time
t
an initial set which clears
up the conceptual haziness around exactly what a 'rule change' is.
ftp://ftp.cse.unsw.edu.au/pub/users/malcolmr/nomic/articles/agora-theses/lib-steve2.html
On 28 June 2013 15:20, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2013, Steven Gardner wrote:
>
On 28 June 2013 14:18, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Steven Gardner
> wrote:
> > It would be an interesting project to design a terse and elegant,
> non-buggy
> > set of initial Rules suitable playing blitz nomic on a mailing list.
>
> Or w
It would be an interesting project to design a terse and elegant, non-buggy
set of initial Rules suitable playing blitz nomic on a mailing list.
On 28 June 2013 13:37, Malcolm Ryan wrote:
> Yes, this is definitely a problem with the "return to the original rules"
> idea. The original rules had a
Nothing in the Rules, perhaps, except for the provision in R217 which
states that game custom is one of two standards to be applied before others
where the rules are unclear.
On 28 June 2013 11:38, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Fool wrote:
> > Argh **
> >
> >
I'd say e remains a player with full rights to continue to play up until
the moment e forfeits.
On 28 June 2013 10:50, Fool wrote:
> On 27/06/2013 8:37 PM, Steven Gardner wrote:
>
>> The argument (setting aside the retroactivity claim) is that Blob was
>> immediately r
On 28 June 2013 10:36, Fool wrote:
>
> In this case, the effect was your forfeiture (or requirement to forfeit).
> It was based on events that occurred prior, but the effect was not
> retroactive.
>
I disagree. R345 describes a sequence of actions that lead to forfeiture.
To avoid retroactive ap
The argument (setting aside the retroactivity claim) is that Blob was
immediately required to forfeit. Not doing so would to be sure be violation
of the Rules, but it still can't happen unless Blob sends a message say
that e forfeits.
On 28 June 2013 10:32, Fool wrote:
> On 27/06/2013 8:19 PM, M
Given that Charles Walker did vote FOR, it doesn't matter if Chuck did vote
AGAINST.
On 28 June 2013 00:00, Steven Gardner wrote:
> Charles Walker voted FOR and his vote is not recorded; Speaker Fool may
> have confused the two 'Charles's. I've no record of Chuck
Charles Walker voted FOR and his vote is not recorded; Speaker Fool may
have confused the two 'Charles's. I've no record of Chuck voting on this
proposal publically, but e may of course have done so privately.
On 27 June 2013 23:48, wrote:
> > Proposal 344 (Yally) passes 5:3 with ehird, Steve, M
Some notes of my own on proposals 348-352:
On 27 June 2013 23:28, Fool wrote:
> 348 (Steve):
>
> > Amend Rule 207 to read:
> >
> > Voters may vote either for or against any proposal within its
> > prescribed voting period. Only messages which clearly and explicitly
> > indicate a pla
Bravo, Goethe!
Agora XX is wildly exceeding my expectations for it!
Steve
On 27 June 2013 23:25, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Some comments on this set of proposals:
>
> 1. I believe each one refers to a well-defined set of entities,
> for which I have straightforward links (out of my control) th
On 27 June 2013 22:38, Fool wrote:
>
> If I receive any proposals promptly, I will distribute.
H. Speaker,
I submit the following Proposals, separated by '==='.
===
Amend Rule 207 to read:
Voters may vote either for or against any proposal within its prescribed
voting period. Only messages w
It'll be interesting if Michael rules that this statement is FALSE, on the
ground that the selection of a Judge for the earlier statement (and by
extension, his own selection as Judge) can be shown to be illegal.
On 27 June 2013 21:11, Fool wrote:
> On 26/06/2013 11:29 PM, Chuck Carroll wrote:
>
I judge that this statement is FALSE.
R207 is silent on the question of whether Roujo can can legally cast votes
in the manner e attempted. By R217 I must therefore be guided by game
custom and spirit of the game. Game custom is not sufficiently established
to be of use here. The spirit of this ga
You should have injected them with an emergency hit of information theory.
Instant clarity.
--
Steve Gardner
via mobile
On 27 Jun 2013 02:08, "Kerim Aydin" wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, Fool wrote:
> > On 26/06/2013 12:07 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > >
> > > I was blocking on the term "logic
For all of these.
--
Steve Gardner
via mobile
On 26 Jun 2013 22:03, "Fool" wrote:
>
> [Missed one...]
>
> Here I'll just number and repeat the four new proposals that were made.
> You can vote by replying to this message, privately if you like.
> I'll send out a full report shortly.
>
> -Dan
>
>
I vote for this proposal.
--
Steve Gardner
via mobile
On 26 Jun 2013 18:21, "Chuck Carroll" wrote:
> I propose that Rule 302, or a Rule formerly having had the number 302 (if
> there is exactly one such rule) be amended to read “Players whose proposals
> are adopted shall receive 10 points.”
Quite right Dan. While I applaud the spirit of omd's attempt to win by
paradox, we are very far from being in a position to say that we cannot
determine whether The UNDEAD is player. We haven't even tried to collect
any of the possibly relevant evidence yet!
On 26 June 2013 11:22, Fool wrote:
>
3 1:24 AM, Flameshadowxeroshin wrote:
>
>> I vote for this proposal.
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Steven Gardner
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I vote for this Proposal.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 25 June 2013 00:10, Steven
>>> Gardner>
On 25 Jun 2013 21:52, "Fool" wrote:
> 331 (omd):
> > I propose that Rule 214 be amended to read:
> >
> > The Speaker shall choose Judges randomly from the set of qualified
> > players. The players qualified to judge a statement are the Speaker
> > and those Voters who voted on the rule change wh
HI Chuck! How are we all doing?
On 24 June 2013 21:29, Chuck Carroll wrote:
> Hi Steve!
>
> ** **
>
> Chuck
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* agora-discussion [mailto:agora-discussion-boun...@agoranomic.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Steven Gardner
> *Sent:* Monday, Ju
Good to hear from you again, old friend. And to see other old-timers here,
too.
On 25 June 2013 00:34, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 24 Sun 2013, Steven Gardner wrote:
> > Happy 20th birthday, Agora. I register as a player of Agora XX.
> > Steve
>
> Steve!! Good
I vote for this Proposal.
On 25 June 2013 00:10, Steven Gardner wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Enact a new Rule which reads:
>
> Within 24 hours of this Rule being enacted, the Speaker shall publish the
> names and email addresses of all registered players of A
I submit the following proposal:
Enact a new Rule which reads:
Within 24 hours of this Rule being enacted, the Speaker shall publish the
names and email addresses of all registered players of Agora XX.
Steve
--
Steve Gardner
Research Grants Development
Faculty of Business and Economics
Monash
I vote for that.
Now, what's Rule 324?
Where can I read the Agora XX Rules?
--
Steve Gardner
via mobile
On 24 Jun 2013 18:18, "Charles Walker" wrote:
> I propose to amend Rule 324 by deleting the first sentence.
>
> -- Walker
>
Happy 20th birthday, Agora. I register as a player of Agora XX.
Steve
--
Steve Gardner
Research Grants Development
Faculty of Business and Economics
Monash University, Caulfield campus
Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486
e: steven.gard...@monash.edu
*** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away f
62 matches
Mail list logo
