On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 18:42 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Nomic is supposed to be a legal simulation, so try another analogy.
> Suppose the U.S. Congress enacted a bill stating that bills enacted by
> Congress take precedence over the Constitution. What do you think
> would happen?
As usual in such m
On Thu, 7 May 2009, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Nomic is supposed to be a legal simulation, so try another analogy.
> Suppose the U.S. Congress enacted a bill stating that bills enacted by
> Congress take precedence over the Constitution. What do you think
> would happen?
>
> My opinion is that the bill w
On Thu, 7 May 2009, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:03 PM, comex wrote:
I don't buy that. The rules are self-empowered, per R2141: "A rule is
a type of instrument with the capacity to govern the game generally."
Supp
comex wrote:
> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Benjamin Caplan
> wrote:
>> I think the least breaky interpretation is that all those proposals did
>> in fact go through, but that R1482 selectively limits the meanings that
>> the rule texts can take on. That is, when a rule created after the
>> cur
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:23 PM, comex wrote:
>> Another option is that, in order to interpret the Rules at any
>> particular instant, we should use the guidelines specified in the
>> /last/ instant. Thus at the moment a problematic low-power rul
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:23 PM, comex wrote:
> Another option is that, in order to interpret the Rules at any
> particular instant, we should use the guidelines specified in the
> /last/ instant. Thus at the moment a problematic low-power rule is
> enacted, we use the rules from a moment ago that
comex wrote:
> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> While you work on that, here's a list of reports we'll need ratified to
>> reset the game state:
>
> Nope. As I said, while ugly, simply ratifying that the offending
> proposal never took effect will reset the gamestate just fine
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:03 PM, comex wrote:
>>> I don't buy that. The rules are self-empowered, per R2141: "A rule is
>>> a type of instrument with the capacity to govern the game generally."
>>> Suppose I were to publish a document like the fo
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:03 PM, comex wrote:
>>> I don't buy that. The rules are self-empowered, per R2141: "A rule is
>>> a type of instrument with the capacity to govern the game generally."
>>> Suppose I were to publish a document like the fo
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:03 PM, comex wrote:
>> I don't buy that. The rules are self-empowered, per R2141: "A rule is
>> a type of instrument with the capacity to govern the game generally."
>> Suppose I were to publish a document like the following:
>
> I agree with everything that follows this
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> While you work on that, here's a list of reports we'll need ratified to
> reset the game state:
Nope. As I said, while ugly, simply ratifying that the offending
proposal never took effect will reset the gamestate just fine and
eliminates corner
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Gratuitous reply:
>>
>> I see what you're saying, and that this is generally what R1482
>> intends, but I have a hard time saying that a claim "This rule takes
>> precedence over matters of X"
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Gratuitous reply:
>
> I see what you're saying, and that this is generally what R1482
> intends, but I have a hard time saying that a claim "This rule takes
> precedence over matters of X" is not a direct specification of
> a means of determinin
Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 06:11 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Both views can't be right. Has the phrase "this matter claims
>> precedence over matters of X" been in an UNDECIDABLE conflict with
>> R1482 all along? Was Rule 2229's claim of precedence (allegedly
>> enacted 2008 or l
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Benjamin Caplan
wrote:
> I think the least breaky interpretation is that all those proposals did
> in fact go through, but that R1482 selectively limits the meanings that
> the rule texts can take on. That is, when a rule created after the
> current version of 1482
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 7 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
>> Aaargh. Let's just amend the rules so ratification definitely works,
>> then ratify everything we can. (Does everyone agree that the mechanism
>> for adopting democratic proposals is definitely what we think it is?)
>
> There is one goo
On Thu, 7 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> Aaargh. Let's just amend the rules so ratification definitely works,
> then ratify everything we can. (Does everyone agree that the mechanism
> for adopting democratic proposals is definitely what we think it is?)
There is one good of the game argument I ca
Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 15:04 -0500, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > On Thu, 7 May 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> >> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Kerim Aydin
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> Another problem. �The exact wording of 1482/2 says that rule changes
>> >>> that
On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 16:48 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Benjamin Caplan
> wrote:
> > There are two competing senses of "stipulate" to choose from: Wooble's,
> > by which no rule currently "stipulates" anything, and the crisis-causing
> > one, by which lots of proposals pr
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Benjamin Caplan
wrote:
> There are two competing senses of "stipulate" to choose from: Wooble's,
> by which no rule currently "stipulates" anything, and the crisis-causing
> one, by which lots of proposals probably had no effect and the gamestate
> requires massive
On Thu, 7 May 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> There are two competing senses of "stipulate" to choose from: Wooble's,
> by which no rule currently "stipulates" anything, and the crisis-causing
> one, by which lots of proposals probably had no effect and the gamestate
> requires massive recalculatio
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 7 May 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 7 May 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Another problem. �The exact wording of 1482/2 says that rule changes
> that cause the ruleset as a w
On Thu, 7 May 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 May 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Another problem. �The exact wording of 1482/2 says that rule changes
that cause the ruleset as a whole to specify *any othe
On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 15:04 -0500, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 May 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>> Another problem. �The exact wording of 1482/2 says that rule changes
> >>> that cause the ruleset as a whole to
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 7 May 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> Another problem. �The exact wording of 1482/2 says that rule changes
>>> that cause the ruleset as a whole to specify *any other means* of
>>> precedence between rules of unequa
On Thu, 7 May 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Another problem. The exact wording of 1482/2 says that rule changes
>> that cause the ruleset as a whole to specify *any other means* of
>> precedence between rules of unequal power are blocked.
>
>
On Thu, 7 May 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> The issue doesn't manifest itself in a Nomic until a rule is passed
>> that states "this rule claims precedence over..." so the solution for
>> Suber would be "don't pass a rule that says that."
>
>
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Another problem. The exact wording of 1482/2 says that rule changes
> that cause the ruleset as a whole to specify *any other means* of
> precedence between rules of unequal power are blocked.
It may be relevant that it says "stipulate" rather
On Thu, 7 May 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> That works in the specific case perhaps. I chose the example as the
> first version of "takes precedence over all rules about X" that I came
> across. If it passes for notes, though, we'd still have to check every
> instance of this language in case a pow
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> Note: if this problem really exists in Agora, it exists in Suber's
> initial ruleset too.
To elucidate the situation: in Suber's ruleset, as well as in Agora,
there is a situation where, if irrelevant changes were inactive, the
precedence ru
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The issue doesn't manifest itself in a Nomic until a rule is passed
> that states "this rule claims precedence over..." so the solution for
> Suber would be "don't pass a rule that says that."
Such a rule already exists in the Suber ruleset; R2
On Thu, 7 May 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I see what you're saying, and that this is generally what R1482
>> intends, but I have a hard time saying that a claim "This rule takes
>> precedence over matters of X" is not a direct specification
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I see what you're saying, and that this is generally what R1482
> intends, but I have a hard time saying that a claim "This rule takes
> precedence over matters of X" is not a direct specification of
> a means of determining precedence. It lit
On Thu, 7 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> (Likewise, I suspect R1482 wouldn't
> affect the Town Fountain in any way, maybe we could use it as a get-out
> here in an emergency?)
Pulling on the third stone in the third row under the nozzle (counting
clockwise) should reveal a small opening with a st
On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 12:50 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > H. Rulekeepor comex, could you please publish to a-d, or link to a
> > website containing, the ruleset as of the adoption of R1482/2? If we're
> > going to have a Massive Gamestate Recalculatio
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> H. Rulekeepor comex, could you please publish to a-d, or link to a
> website containing, the ruleset as of the adoption of R1482/2? If we're
> going to have a Massive Gamestate Recalculation, we may as well have a
> good starting point. (The lin
On Thu, 7 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> Anyway, I think it might be possible that there's no fatal paradox here,
> due to a fortunate accident of wording. Is "taking precedence" the same
> as "stipulating another means of determining precedence"? Arguably,
> taking precedence is the way in which a
On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 06:11 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Both views can't be right. Has the phrase "this matter claims
> precedence over matters of X" been in an UNDECIDABLE conflict with
> R1482 all along? Was Rule 2229's claim of precedence (allegedly
> enacted 2008 or later) allegedly IMPOSSIB
On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 06:11 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> In the past, when a low-powered rule has claimed precedence over a
> certain matter (e.g. rests), we have reasoned that "R1030 allows this
> claim to work for rules of the same power, but R1482 overrules this
> claim for rules of different pow
On Thu, 7 May 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Linguistically, I just don't see a dividing lines between a "claim
> of precedence" and a "specification of a means of determining
> precedence". Both can be broad or narrow, both say "x has
> precedence over y under circumstances z", I don't see that any
On Thu, 7 May 2009, comex wrote:
> Change the power of Rule 1698 (Agora Is a Nomic) to 4.
Use power 3.something please (not out of deference to the Fountain,
but because like line numbering in BASIC, it's good to leave emergency
room above just in case).
-G.
On Thu, 7 May 2009, comex wrote:
> More importantly, did the relevant proposals fail to take effect
> because of that paragraph? Indeed, that clause takes precedence over
> ratification... this could be messy.
Ooh, and there I was thinking "at least we ratified the ruleset
last September". -G.
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I CFJ on the following: The phrase "This takes precedence over any other
> rule" in Rule 2229/1 attempts to specify a means of determining precedence
> between rules of unequal as well as equal power for a particular matter
> of spending rests.
43 matches
Mail list logo
