On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Not exactly. Lindrum's proponents and opponents worked to ensure that
> the "restart" converged the states. But you do point to something that
> was a problem the whole time: the Wizards were also players, with a
> huge amount of disproporti
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2009/2/18 Kerim Aydin :
>> Standing precedent is that it split the game into two wholly internally
>> consistent interpretations, one that it worked, one that it didn't work.
>> Each state (internally) could declare itself valid. So, UNDECIDABLE,
>> whic
2009/2/18 Kerim Aydin :
> Standing precedent is that it split the game into two wholly internally
> consistent interpretations, one that it worked, one that it didn't work.
> Each state (internally) could declare itself valid. So, UNDECIDABLE,
> which required a metagame reunification.
>
> Back wh
On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 10:17 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>
> > Well, one thing that worries me is that with democratisation possible
> > while voting isn't, the Assessor gets quite a lot of power over whether
> > ordinary proposals are adopted or not. (I am reminded of proposal 5707;
>
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Elliott Hird wrote:
> Standing precedent is that LW didn't work, right? I've never seen a copy
> of the rules at the time so it'd be hard to tell...
Standing precedent is that it split the game into two wholly internally
consistent interpretations, one that it worked, one tha
ais523 wrote:
> Well, one thing that worries me is that with democratisation possible
> while voting isn't, the Assessor gets quite a lot of power over whether
> ordinary proposals are adopted or not. (I am reminded of proposal 5707;
> incidentally, it could have been defeated with 2 support at pr
2009/2/18 Kerim Aydin :
> There was a Second Coming in 2001, when Lindrum, eir arch-enemy Evantine,
> and myself in the middle, (re-?)registered within a week of each other,
> and played for 8-9 months. Several other former Nomic Worlders were
> still among us, then.
>
> It was known at the time a
On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 08:07 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> > Well, one thing that worries me is that with democratisation possible
> > while voting isn't, the Assessor gets quite a lot of power over whether
> > ordinary proposals are adopted or not. (I am remin
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2009/2/18 Kerim Aydin :
>>
>> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
6109 D 1 3.0 comex Right to vote
>>> PRESENT. It's unclear how this would interact with the Penrose-Banzhaf
>>> or Shapley-Shubik power indices.
>>
>> Heh. Actua
On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 07:45 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> >> 6115 O 1 1.0 Murphy Get on with it!
> > AGAINSTx5, gives the Assessor /even more/ power over timing scams than e
> > currently does. (I'm actually considering writing proposals to give
>
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
>> 6115 O 1 1.0 Murphy Get on with it!
> AGAINSTx5, gives the Assessor /even more/ power over timing scams than e
> currently does. (I'm actually considering writing proposals to give
> everyone a fair chance at Assessor-related timing scams, rat
2009/2/18 Kerim Aydin :
>
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>>> 6109 D 1 3.0 comex Right to vote
>> PRESENT. It's unclear how this would interact with the Penrose-Banzhaf
>> or Shapley-Shubik power indices.
>
> Heh. Actually calculated these for an Agoran voting distribut
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>> 6109 D 1 3.0 comex Right to vote
> PRESENT. It's unclear how this would interact with the Penrose-Banzhaf
> or Shapley-Shubik power indices.
Heh. Actually calculated these for an Agoran voting distribution
a few years ago, when trying
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
>> 6109 D 1 3.0 comex Right to vote
> AGAINST. (1) Gives all partnerships votes.
I actually made the proposal without thinking of that.
Goethe wrote:
>> 6115 O 1 1.0 Murphy Get on with it!
> 2xFOR (but why is ending the voting period power 1?)
R107 (Power 3) prevents ending it less than seven days after it begins.
15 matches
Mail list logo
