Ed Murphy wrote:
>Which is why allowing e.g. a Power=1 rule to temporarily trump a
>Power=3 rule would require >= 3/4 support on a case-by-case basis.
You'd also allow a Power=2 rule to trump a Power=3 rule with a 60%
supermajority, where currently a 75% supermajority would be required.
Pretty big
On 5/17/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm envisioning writing the entire ruleset in a formal
denotational semantics language and automated theorem proving in the pi
calculus... we're not going to get there easily.
That was kind of the idea behind schemenomic -- perhaps having an
(author
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
e) A player may, with Agoran consent with a consent index of
H/L, perform an action and cause a rule with Power L to take
precedence over a rule with Power H with regard to that
action. E must be otherwise permitted to perform that ac
here's the first one, the more political one. The second one (later
sometime) is more mathematical.
Proto: On all our houses
Repeal 1688, 1482, and 1030.
[Note: order of things must be considered for this bootstrapping]
Enact the following Rule, entitled "All our houses"
House is a stuc
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>The answer is, only if we create a rule with higher precedence.
Not true. That paragraph doesn't prevent repeal of the rule at all.
Also, if you want to change the precedence mechanism without repealing
R1482, all you have to do is amend R1482 to delete that paragraph.
>that
Curse you, Maud. Now I am thinking of it. I shouldn't be. I've got
two proto-proto entirely new systems lined up.
HOWEVER: Is it possible to repeal R1482 with its silly "protective"
clause:
No change to the Ruleset can occur that would cause a Rule
to stipulate any other means of
Ed Murphy wrote:
> e) A player may, with Agoran consent with a consent index of
> H/L, perform an action and cause a rule with Power L to take
> precedence over a rule with Power H with regard to that
> action. E must be otherwise permitted to perform that action,
>
You could always re-institute the Virus...
BobTHJ
On 5/17/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Maud wrote:
> I hereby place a bounty of one magic cookie and a (virtual) pat on the
> back to the first person to write a good proto or proposal which would
> repeal rules 1688, 1482, and 1030.
Maud wrote:
I hereby place a bounty of one magic cookie and a (virtual) pat on the
back to the first person to write a good proto or proposal which would
repeal rules 1688, 1482, and 1030. Goodness of protos and proposals
will be evaluated relative to my biases, of course.
This only achieves
Michael Slone wrote:
>I don't intend that supermajority voting vanish.
So we'll still need a mutability index, or something equivalent, you
just don't want it tied to precedence.
There's a basic problem with this. Consider the whole class of
systems where precedence is a partial ordering among r
On 5/17/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Do you intend there to be no precedence mechanism at all? And what
about supermajority voting?
I don't intend that supermajority voting vanish.
As for precedence, there is almost certainly a nice system out there
that we haven't tried, since we've
Michael Slone wrote:
>repeal rules 1688, 1482, and 1030.
Do you intend there to be no precedence mechanism at all? And what
about supermajority voting?
-zefram
I hereby place a bounty of one magic cookie and a (virtual) pat on the
back to the first person to write a good proto or proposal which would
repeal rules 1688, 1482, and 1030. Goodness of protos and proposals
will be evaluated relative to my biases, of course.
--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
O
13 matches
Mail list logo
