I think doing karma would take a deeper look at all the SHALLs and
SHOULDs to ask which ones should still be illegal versus left to
karma - a deeper reform. Mean time, this version isn't that much
different than current I'll probably go PRESENT on it.
On Sun, 10 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
>
Karma is bootleg democracy though imo, but I like both (I believe
popularity is extremely relevant anyway at nomic in general, regardless of
if such a system enables it or not. It's a factor both at Blognomic and
Agora at an informal level, and the informal level governs everything else
imo.)
On M
Actually, the word democratization made me think of another approach,
it was called karma, and it worked pretty well most of the
time as a nice social constraint and reward with occasioanal spats of tit for
tat
that were self-limiting, because if the combatants got out of hand, others
would st
On 09/10/17 12:41, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I've always disliked thought police rules, we've had them, but both
> the burden of evidence and bad feeling make them a pain, and trying
> to codify specific forbidden speech leaves loopholes where a scammer
> can skirt the technical punishment while still
Proto:
White Card: This card is appropriate for cases of unsportsmanlike contact
where no other card is appropriate. This card can be (and only be) awarded
by announcement which also contains a specification of a number and 3
support. The possessor of this card cannot perform any ruleset-granted
ac
I've always disliked thought police rules, we've had them, but both
the burden of evidence and bad feeling make them a pain, and trying
to codify specific forbidden speech leaves loopholes where a scammer
can skirt the technical punishment while still being just as "bad".
Going along with our cu
Did you read the entire message?
On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 09:43 Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Sorry for the double post but I just got another idea:
>
> What if I made an Agency/Contract that let me be other people's
> talking-proxy? If they deliberately lie, they wouldn't be infringing "and
> it was made
Sorry for the double post but I just got another idea:
What if I made an Agency/Contract that let me be other people's
talking-proxy? If they deliberately lie, they wouldn't be infringing "and
it was made with the intent to mislead.", because I wouldn't have "made"
the message with any intent, bec
Do statements on a-d count?
Do statements that people publish elsewhere, outside of Agora, also count?
On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I retract the proposal "Truthfulness", and submit the following.
>
> ---
> Title: Truthfulness v2
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: Aris
>
comex wrote:
>[Truthiness is going to die; why not reduce useless clutter at the same
>time?]
Why remove useful clarification?
-zefram
Zefram wrote:
I hereby submit the following proposal, titled "truthfulness":
{{{
Retitle rule 2149 to "Truthfulness", and amend it to read
A person SHALL NOT make a false statement in any public message
while knowing that the statement is false or being reckless as
to its ve
11 matches
Mail list logo
