On 5/24/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Anyway... I meant to say that I don't know what rule 106 you're talking
about.
Er, it's the one titled "Adopting Proposals".
-root
Anyway... I meant to say that I don't know what rule 106 you're talking
about.
pgpgRQrJDrLWo.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Why were we doing this again?
Er, I forget. Something to do with 0-member partnerships, judging from
the subject line.
-root
On 5/24/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
root wrote:
> On 5/24/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> root wrote:
>>
>> > On 5/24/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> On 5/24/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > BEGIN TRANSACTION;
>> >> >
>> >> > UPDATE RULE 106
>>
Murphy wrote:
> update rules
> set text = replace(text,'old','new')
> where number = 106
FWIW, you're forgetting version numbers means every amendment is kept,
so (forgiving the php intrusion):
$query = "INSERT into $tablename values ('$rnum','$rver','$rflags',
'$rtitle', '$rhistory',
Let me try my hand at this...
UPDATE Agora SET Winner='BobTHJ'
On 5/24/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
root wrote:
> On 5/24/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> root wrote:
>>
>> > On 5/24/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> On 5/24/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
root wrote:
On 5/24/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
root wrote:
> On 5/24/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 5/24/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > BEGIN TRANSACTION;
>> >
>> > UPDATE RULE 106
>> > SET TEXT = 'SQL script'
>> > WHERE TEXT = 'document';
>> >
>> > COM
On 5/24/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
root wrote:
> On 5/24/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 5/24/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > BEGIN TRANSACTION;
>> >
>> > UPDATE RULE 106
>> > SET TEXT = 'SQL script'
>> > WHERE TEXT = 'document';
>> >
>> > COMMIT TRANSACTIO
root wrote:
On 5/24/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/24/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BEGIN TRANSACTION;
>
> UPDATE RULE 106
> SET TEXT = 'SQL script'
> WHERE TEXT = 'document';
>
> COMMIT TRANSACTION;
Query OK, 0 rules affected (0.00 sec)
Rules matched: 0 Changed: 0 Wa
On 5/24/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/24/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BEGIN TRANSACTION;
>
> UPDATE RULE 106
> SET TEXT = 'SQL script'
> WHERE TEXT = 'document';
>
> COMMIT TRANSACTION;
Query OK, 0 rules affected (0.00 sec)
Rules matched: 0 Changed: 0 Warnings: 0
I
On 5/24/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
BEGIN TRANSACTION;
UPDATE RULE 106
SET TEXT = 'SQL script'
WHERE TEXT = 'document';
COMMIT TRANSACTION;
Query OK, 0 rules affected (0.00 sec)
Rules matched: 0 Changed: 0 Warnings: 0
On 5/24/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What exactly about that provision makes you think I would enjoy Agora
being transformed into a glorified database?
BEGIN TRANSACTION;
UPDATE RULE 106
SET TEXT = 'SQL script'
WHERE TEXT = 'document';
COMMIT TRANSACTION;
-root
Michael Slone wrote:
>What exactly about that provision makes you think I would enjoy Agora
>being transformed into a glorified database?
Er, what aspect of B Nomic's transaction rule makes you think it makes
the game a glorified database?
-zefram
On 5/24/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No. I'm talking about
The provisions of this (proto)proposal are nonseverable.
What exactly about that provision makes you think I would enjoy Agora
being transformed into a glorified database?
--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
The cynic in me
Michael Slone wrote:
>I don't understand your clause ``which explicitly puts all the rule
>changes into a single transaction''. Are you talking about the text
No. I'm talking about
The provisions of this (proto)proposal are nonseverable.
-zefram
Zefram wrote:
> R869: "A person ... is permitted to register.". A team, even if organised
> under the contract law of some state, is not a person.
I am finding your (in terms of Agoran law) baseless pronouncements on
what is and is not a person rather tiresome. When I brought the idea
to you in
On 5/23/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1-16 (Transactions) is great. I don't see your objection: just three
days ago you posted a protoproposal ("Generalize Dependent Actions")
which explicitly puts all the rule changes into a single transaction.
1-16 just formalises that possibility. I
On 5/23/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The 1994-02 to 1994-08 mail archive that I have from Oerjan does not
show such a player in that period. I joined sometime in 1995 and never
saw such a player. So it looks like they'd gone before 1994-02, at least.
In August 1993, Deb & Bob judged
On 5/23/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/23/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In a quantum universe, yes.
How do you figure?
Quantum theory isn't actually required; I was being snarky. I just
mean that in any Turing test setup with gravitationally generated
responses
I suppose it wouldn't be too hard for a group of us to resurrect B Nomic. In
fact, it could be the first of may Agoran protectorates...
BobTHJ
On 5/23/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
comex wrote:
>I'm a refugee from the (dead, as far as I know, which is why I joined
>Agora) B Nomic.
Ah,
comex wrote:
>I'm a refugee from the (dead, as far as I know, which is why I joined
>Agora) B Nomic.
Ah, a pity. I was pondering joining, because Agora wasn't keeping me
occupied enough. (Agora's speeded up a tad since then.)
How did it die?
> I don't think any corporation, te
Maud wrote:
Look at rules 1-15 and 1-16. Ick ick ick.
What's wrong with 1-16?
Michael Norrish wrote:
>Michael Slone wrote:
>>Were deb & bob playing before, during, or after 30 September 1993,
>>when rule 498 (``A player is any person who is registered as a
>>player...'') was enacted?
>
>Good question.
The 1994-02 to 1994-08 mail archive that I have from Oerjan does not
show
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Do they? I'm not finding it.
R869: "A person ... is permitted to register.". A team, even if organised
under the contract law of some state, is not a person.
> I'm not sure that the Rules do
>concern themselves with motives, nor should they.
Th
On Wednesday 23 May 2007 7:07 pm, Zefram wrote:
> I'm not sure that it should, but the rules definitely have an opinion
> on it. I'd be quite happy to generalise personhood much more widely so
> that the issue wouldn't arise. B Nomic's rule on this is a great model:
> it explicitly allows any "ex
On 5/23/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In a quantum universe, yes.
How do you figure?
--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
That's scary.
-- The Goddess Eris, in agora-discussion
root wrote:
> How interesting. I predict that the force of gravity will be
> registering shortly at B Nomic.
Actually, I was thinking of using gravity in Maud's "repeal power"
challenge.
"Each Rule has a Mass and position. A Rule defers to any
group of Rules with a greater net gravitatio
On 5/23/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/23/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How interesting. I predict that the force of gravity will be
> registering shortly at B Nomic.
Can the force of gravity pass a Turing test?
In a quantum universe, yes. Fortunately, the rule
Michael Slone wrote:
On 5/23/07, Michael Norrish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I believe this happened in the early days - we had a couple playing as
a single Player. There was no attempt to conceal the situation from
us, but we probably didn't have anything in the rules saying that a
Player was a
Zefram wrote:
> > and why
> > should Agora care?
>
> I'm not sure that it should, but the rules definitely have an opinion
> on it.
Do they? I'm not finding it. I'm not sure that the Rules do
concern themselves with motives, nor should they.
On 5/23/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How interesting. I predict that the force of gravity will be
registering shortly at B Nomic.
Can the force of gravity pass a Turing test?
--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
Whooops! Free Kudos!
-- Manu, in agora-discussion
On 5/23/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not sure that it should, but the rules definitely have an opinion
on it. I'd be quite happy to generalise personhood much more widely so
that the issue wouldn't arise. B Nomic's rule on this is a great model:
it explicitly allows any "external f
On 5/23/07, Michael Norrish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I believe this happened in the early days - we had a couple playing as
a single Player. There was no attempt to conceal the situation from
us, but we probably didn't have anything in the rules saying that a
Player was a person either.
Were
On 5/23/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not sure that it should, but the rules definitely have an opinion
on it. I'd be quite happy to generalise personhood much more widely so
that the issue wouldn't arise. B Nomic's rule on this is a great model:
it explicitly allows any "external f
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Zefram wrote:
It could not be enforced in the
Agoran court system. Any legal person constructed by a foreign contract
would therefore not be recognised as a person in Agoran law.
Actually, it depends on the question you're asking, this isn't what BobTHJ
asked. For example
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>So my question is, why are any of these "fradulent",
In some of those cases, a team of two natural persons is implicitly
claiming to be a single natural person. You've quite correctly pointed
out a continuum; drawing a line within it is difficult and not necessarily
useful. B
Roger Hicks wrote:
>Amend Rule # 1742 by replacing the word "Players" in the first paragraph
>with "Persons".
This raises questions of enforceability. One of the implications of
R1503 is that the rules can only bind players, not non-player persons.
-zefram
Zefram wrote:
> That would be fraudulent.
I'm sorry, that's an absurd assertion. Take the following:
1. As a non-player natural person, I register, and I have a non-
Player friend who reads the email list but doesn't play, and I
occasionally ask eir opinion on a vote and follow it.
2. As a
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> it would be trivial for two non-players to make
>an arrangement, and then register under a name from a shared or invididual
>email account, Agora would have no way of distinguishing that joint
>arrangement from a "natural" player.
That would be fraudulent.
Zefram wrote:
> It could not be enforced in the
> Agoran court system. Any legal person constructed by a foreign contract
> would therefore not be recognised as a person in Agoran law.
Actually, it depends on the question you're asking, this isn't what BobTHJ
asked. For example, it would be tr
Roger Hicks wrote:
>Theoretically, couldn't two or more non-player persons make a binding
>agreement among themselves under a national contract law, and then, being a
>legal person, register as a Player?
That's a more interesting question. I believe the answer is still no.
Agora has never accepte
Geewhen is read the ruleset week again? I think it's time for me to take
another look.
Theoretically, couldn't two or more non-player persons make a binding
agreement among themselves under a national contract law, and then, being a
legal person, register as a Player?
BobTHJ
On 5/23/07, Zef
Roger Hicks wrote:
>This brings up an interesting question. Can a person who is not a player be
>a partner to an R1742 binding agreement?
No. R1742 explicitly refers to agreements between "players".
-zefram
This brings up an interesting question. Can a person who is not a player be
a partner to an R1742 binding agreement?
BobTHJ
On 5/23/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I hereby call for judgement on these two linked statements:
* a binding agreement under rule 1742 can be made among a set o
44 matches
Mail list logo
