Heck, I've only attempted one proposal in my 4 months here, and I
immediately retracted it after I realized how stupid it sounded. I
infinitely prefer judgements and contracts. (I haven't changed the rules at
all, but I'm near the top in points!)
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 11:42 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROT
On 04/04/2008, Ankica Zilic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know that it is about creating rools but at this time the game that you
> created would need to be studied,but I have to say that you are
> creative..very
Indeed. I studied the Agora Nomic rules for a while before actually
doing anything.
I know that it is about creating rools but at this time the game that you
created would need to be studied,but I have to say that you are
creative..very
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ankica Zilic wrote:
> >I think I will never get what this game is about
>
>
Ankica Zilic wrote:
>I think I will never get what this game is about
Oh dear, I thought the web page made it fairly clear.
> cause it lasts so long and
>you have created so many rools
Yes, this is what this game is about.
-zefram
I think I will never get what this game is about cause it lasts so long and
you have created so many rools so I should quit...
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 11:18 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PRO
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > To put it in a language and describe it as a custom all Agorans should
>> > understand, allowing future specification would be a TEOISIWDTIWDTWPAIAW.
>>
>> "terrible example of 'I say
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > To put it in a language and describe it as a custom all Agorans should
> > understand, allowing future specification would be a TEOISIWDTIWDTWPAIAW.
>
> "terrible example of 'I say I will do, therefore I will do' that will
Zefram wrote:
> I'd prefer to legislate that messages take effect at the time they
> are processed by the list software. That'd make it the same Received:
> header that is significant in each message, and any skew affects everyone
> equally.
If you propose this, then please annotate it to explai
Goethe wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Zefram wrote:
>> Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>>> Rule 478: "Any action performed by sending a message is performed at
>>> the time date-stamped on that message."
>> I'd point at the preceding sentence:
>>
>> Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed
Ed Murphy wrote:
> A public message's claim to have been published as of the
> time in its Date: header is self-ratifying,
Do you expect there to be a lot of such claims?
I'd prefer to legislate that messages take effect at the time they
are processed by the list software. That'd make
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So my scam only fails if someone accuses me of scamming *before* I
> actually do it?
No, it follows the normal self-ratification process, unless such a
challenge has been made against the publisher (presumably for some
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Zefram wrote:
> Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> Rule 478: "Any action performed by sending a message is performed at
>> the time date-stamped on that message."
>
> I'd point at the preceding sentence:
>
> Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
> announcem
Zefram wrote:
> When I was registrar, many years ago, I actually used the appropriate
> Received: header routinely. As far as I know this is unique among
> officeholders.
Likely because it requires remembering which Received: header is the
appropriate one.
Proto-Proposal: When Am I?
(AI = 3, p
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>Rule 478: "Any action performed by sending a message is performed at
>the time date-stamped on that message."
I'd point at the preceding sentence:
Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
announcement", a player performs that action by announci
> When I was registrar, many years ago, I actually used the appropriate
> Received: header routinely. As far as I know this is unique among
> officeholders.
I used to do this as well as Promotor and Registrar, until the
appropriate Received: header changed.
-root
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 2:16 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Looking at B Nomic Rule 4E7, I also see nothing stopping one from
> basing either the scheduled time or the number of repetitions on a
> specific quantity that is impractical to compute (e.g. "the private
> key corresponding
On 4/3/08, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does it allow conditionals as well?
Yes.
Yes it does.
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is it exactly that makes post-dated actions invalid? (just curious)
Rule 478: "Any action performed by sending a message is performed at
the time date-stamped on that message."
Forging your date stamp arguably would a
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:31 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The rule in question says "a specified time in the future". Another
> part of that rule explicitly equates "I perform X
> times" as equivalent to that many instances of "I perform X", so "I
> perform X at each of " would
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:31 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The rule in question says "a specified time in the future". Another
> part of that rule explicitly equates "I perform X
> times" as equivalent to that many instances of "I perform X", so "I
> perform X at each of " would
root wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Getting your nomics crossed again? (B Nomic allows actions to be
>> performed in the future like this; ties are broken in favor of the
>> player who published first.)
>
> Hmm. Suppose I announce in B Nomic
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Getting your nomics crossed again? (B Nomic allows actions to be
> performed in the future like this; ties are broken in favor of the
> player who published first.)
Hmm. Suppose I announce in B Nomic that I perform an act
BobTHJ wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Roger Hicks wrote:
>> >Uh...yeah. I'm gonna recuse myself from this one too.
>>
>> Go on then.
>>
>> -zefram
>>
> Very well then, at exactly 03:59 UTC on April 5, 2008 I recuse myself
> from this case.
Getting
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Very well then, at exactly 03:59 UTC on April 5, 2008 I recuse myself
> from this case.
Fails.
-root
BobTHJ wrote:
> Uh...yeah. I'm gonna recuse myself from this one too. Too busy at the
> moment to give it a fair look.
I believe this falls afoul of the same problem as "I'll consent".
Roger Hicks wrote:
>Uh...yeah. I'm gonna recuse myself from this one too.
Go on then.
-zefram
26 matches
Mail list logo
