On Wednesday, October 23, 2019 11:37 PM, Ørjan Johansen
wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Oct 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> >* players SHALL NOT clearly identify this rule - doing so is the
> > Class 1 Crime of Uttering the Forbidden Name.
> >
> > Any player CAN, without objection,
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 4:38 PM Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Oct 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> >* players SHALL NOT clearly identify this rule - doing so is the
> > Class 1 Crime of Uttering the Forbidden Name.
> >
> > Any player CAN, without objection, exorcise
On Tue, 15 Oct 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
* players SHALL NOT clearly identify this rule - doing so is the
Class 1 Crime of Uttering the Forbidden Name.
Any player CAN, without objection, exorcise this rule (cause it to
repeal itself).
Do you envision a way for
twg wrote:
On Saturday, October 12, 2019 10:17 PM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
Are there any objections (especially from the H. Referee) to making that rule a
reality? I’m aware that it could create a minor mess, but would just be so much
fun, and the penalty for violating it is quite minor.
-Ari
On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 at 10:09, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 5:51 AM, Aris Merchant
> wrote
...
> > How would you feel if we explicitly made it so it repealed itself
> > immediately before each ruleset ratification takes effect? That’d stop it
> > lurking forever without
On 10/15/2019 7:08 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
On 10/15/19 6:42 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
For more paranoia inducement, see
also:https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg30233.html
-twg
Sounds G. still liked the idea of that, with NSC.
v. different beasts - the NSC
On 10/15/19 6:42 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
For more paranoia inducement, see
also:https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg30233.html
-twg
Sounds G. still liked the idea of that, with NSC.
--
Jason Cobb
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 3:11 AM, James Cook wrote:
> I've wondered before whether people have planted some snag like this
> in Agora's history that new players like me have no practical way to
> know about.
>
> This is a quite elegantly simple way to implement my fear, with
> probably no bad
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 5:51 AM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 8:11 PM James Cook wrote:
> > I've wondered before whether people have planted some snag like this
> > in Agora's history that new players like me have no practical way to
> > know about.
> > This is a quite ele
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 5:44 AM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 10:00 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Putting untracked things like this is the Crime of Invisibilitating,
> > which is a crime that is defined in an untracked thing like this.
>
> I was under the impression that that
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 8:11 PM James Cook wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 at 22:17, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 3:12 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 12, 2019 9:15 PM, D. Margaux <
> dmargaux...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > I point my finger at Murp
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 10:00 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On 10/14/2019 8:11 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 at 22:17, Aris Merchant
> > wrote:
> >>> Are there any objections (especially from the H. Referee) to making
> that
> >> rule a reality? I’m aware that it could create a minor
On 10/14/2019 8:11 PM, James Cook wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 at 22:17, Aris Merchant
wrote:
Are there any objections (especially from the H. Referee) to making that
rule a reality? I’m aware that it could create a minor mess, but would just
be so much fun, and the penalty for violating it is
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 at 22:17, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 3:12 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 12, 2019 9:15 PM, D. Margaux
> > wrote:
> > > I point my finger at Murphy for uttering the forbidden name
> >
> > -twg
> >
> > After a not-inconsiderable amount
On 10/13/19 1:52 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
5. You might want to include something to the effect of “The ratification
of a ruleset that does not include this rule shall not be deemed to cause
this rule to cease to exist.”
This may not be necessary based on the pending judgement of CFJ 3775 [0].
On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 11:00 AM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 2019-10-13 at 10:52 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > 5. You might want to include something to the effect of “The
> > ratification of a ruleset that does not include this rule shall not
> > be dee
On Sun, 2019-10-13 at 10:52 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> 5. You might want to include something to the effect of “The
> ratification of a ruleset that does not include this rule shall not
> be deemed to cause this rule to cease to exist.”
I'd consider this to be too dangerous. Note that you can o
On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 10:27 AM Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 10/13/19 7:01 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > Enact a new Rule of Power 1.0 with the text:
> >
> > Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Rulekeepor's reports
> > NEED NOT include this rule or any information about it. C
On 10/13/19 1:44 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Where does it say that the assignment need be done publicly? It also
need
not be sequential - that's tradition not requirement - so the
Rulekeepor can
assign it a number (e.g. "Pi") secretly[1]. Then it would be illegal to
pass on that information to th
On 10/13/2019 10:26 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 10/13/19 7:01 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>> Enact a new Rule of Power 1.0 with the text:
>>
>> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Rulekeepor's reports
>> NEED NOT include this rule or any information about it. Clearly
>>
On 10/13/19 7:01 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
Enact a new Rule of Power 1.0 with the text:
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Rulekeepor's reports
NEED NOT include this rule or any information about it. Clearly
identifying this rule is the Class 1 Crime of Utterin
On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 13:54 -0700, Edward Murphy wrote:
> > On Sat, 2019-09-28 at 10:26 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > But yes, this depends on assuming, in the absence of an explicit
> > > definition, that "the ruleset" in R1681 and R1030 is simply shorthand
> > > for "the set of all rules". (is
On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 3:12 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> On Saturday, October 12, 2019 9:15 PM, D. Margaux
> wrote:
> > I point my finger at Murphy for uttering the forbidden name
>
> -twg
>
> After a not-inconsiderable amount of research, I've found no evidence that
> the rule Murphy refers t
ais523 wrote:
On Sat, 2019-09-28 at 10:26 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
But yes, this depends on assuming, in the absence of an explicit
definition, that "the ruleset" in R1681 and R1030 is simply shorthand
for "the set of all rules". (is there another common definition that
makes sense?)
For me
On 9/28/2019 10:30 AM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-09-28 at 10:26 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> But yes, this depends on assuming, in the absence of an explicit
>> definition, that "the ruleset" in R1681 and R1030 is simply shorthand
>> for "the set of all rules". (is there an
On Sat, 2019-09-28 at 10:26 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> But yes, this depends on assuming, in the absence of an explicit
> definition, that "the ruleset" in R1681 and R1030 is simply shorthand
> for "the set of all rules". (is there another common definition that
> makes sense?)
For me, the natur
On 9/28/2019 10:10 AM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-09-28 at 10:06 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On 9/28/2019 9:33 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>>> On 9/28/19 11:58 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Ruining the Ruleset
>>>
>>> I withdr
On Sat, 2019-09-28 at 10:06 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On 9/28/2019 9:33 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > On 9/28/19 11:58 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > >
> > > I submit the following proposal:
> > >
> > >
> > > Title: Ruining the Ruleset
> >
> > I withdraw this proposal.
>
> lol just realized that thi
On 9/28/2019 9:33 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
On 9/28/19 11:58 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Ruining the Ruleset
I withdraw this proposal.
lol just realized that this is a straight-up Russell's Barber paradox:
"This is a Rule, but it's not in the set of all Rule
29 matches
Mail list logo
