On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, omd wrote:
> However, I'll note that the proposal (both of them actually)
> that purportedly fixed ratification was distributed with the same
> incorrect description, and I actually deregistered during its voting
> period, making it a substantive error. The resolution was al
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, omd wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > What's incorrect about eligible voter description? It's the boilerplate
> > from many previous and I believe it's technically accurate.
>
> As I saw ais523 mention in the IRC backlog, the class of eligib
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> What's incorrect about eligible voter description? It's the boilerplate
> from many previous and I believe it's technically accurate.
As I saw ais523 mention in the IRC backlog, the class of eligible
voters you specified ("active players at
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > 2. At least one absolute ruler is a *byword* for fair resolution (Solomon).
> > The proof of the pudding...
>
> Or maybe it's exceptio probat regulam. Fallacies are fun.
And in any case, exc
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > 2. At least one absolute ruler is a *byword* for fair resolution (Solomon).
> > The proof of the pudding...
>
> Or maybe it's exceptio probat regulam. Fallacies are fun.
Less a fallacy and m
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 2. At least one absolute ruler is a *byword* for fair resolution (Solomon).
> The proof of the pudding...
Or maybe it's exceptio probat regulam. Fallacies are fun.
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, com...@gmail.com wrote:
> > If you were inactive, how could you be an eligible voter?
>
> I became active last Tuesday (before the scam) but the Losing Condition
> of inactivity persists for a week after becoming active (R2130 last
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, com...@gmail.com wrote:
> If you were inactive, how could you be an eligible voter?
I became active last Tuesday (before the scam) but the Losing Condition
of inactivity persists for a week after becoming active (R2130 last
sentence) so just ended for me a few hours ago. -
If you were inactive, how could you be an eligible voter?
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 25, 2011, at 1:50 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2011, John Smith wrote:
>> In the interest of maintaining everyone's right to resolve matters of
>> controversy,
>> If and only if no player is c
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, ais523 wrote:
> And I was indeed wondering if the attempted mass deregistration violated
> R101 (how can you resolve a matter of controversy in a remotely fair
> manner when there's a dictatorship?).
Three comments:
1. R101 guarantees an expectation of resolution, but says
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, omd wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > This distribution of proposal 6958
> > initiates the Agoran Decision on whether to adopt it. The eligible
> > voters are the active players at the time of this distribution
>
> In case anyone wants to try
On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 21:18 -0800, John Smith wrote:
> In the interest of maintaining everyone's right to resolve matters of
> controversy,
> If and only if no player is currently Grand Vizier,
> {I register myself as a player.
>
> I flip my posture to Sitting.
>
> I intend, with notice, to act a
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> This distribution of proposal 6958
> initiates the Agoran Decision on whether to adopt it. The eligible
> voters are the active players at the time of this distribution
In case anyone wants to try to judicially punish this scam, I'll note
tha
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011, ais523 wrote:
> Yep, I think that narrows down our area of disagreement pretty well. I
> think the reason I'm interpreting it my way is that the actual text, "I
> cause R2324 to make ais523 assume the Pariah office.", to me pretty
> strongly implies that you're somehow causi
On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 08:54 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I agree with everything you say.
>
> Where we disagree (or at least discussing) is that you seem to think
> that I invoked something like:
>
>"I cause R2324 to act on behalf of ais523 to make ais523 announce that
> e assumes the Offi
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011, ais523 wrote:
> (The only change is the addition of "e has not already done so that
> quarter".) Now, if you cause me to make myself the holder of Pariah,
> then that prevents me from assuming any more offices that quarter; and
> if you install me directly, then it doesn't. T
On Sun, 2011-01-23 at 12:20 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2011, ais523 wrote:
> > There's no need to involve Pariah here at all, players can create Rests
> > in eir own possession by announcement. And this scam relies on being
> > able to cause players to perform arbitrary actions a
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011, Ed Murphy wrote:
> G. wrote:
> > I designed failure (I think) such that if some deregistrations failed,
> > there would still be a Fix Proposal at Power 3.1 for which I was the
> > only eligible voter due to inactivity. That should degrade gracefully.
>
> Nope, you made a
G. wrote:
> Since you became inactive, I can Assume the office and do it.
> Looking back I realize I have to do so because Fourth Movement
> requires "G." to announce the result.
Should be okay, you already resigned Promotor (possible loophole
in R1450, you can act as Promotor and Assessor for th
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On 11-01-23 02:17 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > On 11-01-23 01:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > This time to the proper forum:
> >
> > I deregister.
> >
> > If you are going to deregister everyone for a scam, prepare to live with
> > the consequences.
> >
>
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011, ais523 wrote:
> There's no need to involve Pariah here at all, players can create Rests
> in eir own possession by announcement. And this scam relies on being
> able to cause players to perform arbitrary actions at power 1 (making me
> assume Pariah, an action, is different f
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011, Ed Murphy wrote:
> G. wrote:
>
> > [I plan to resolve it Assessor in ~four days.
>
> You missed changing this bit. Of course, you could just as well
> cause R2324 to make yourself Assessor when the time comes.
Since you became inactive, I can Assume the office and do it.
ais523 wrote:
> There's no need to involve Pariah here at all, players can create Rests
> in eir own possession by announcement. And this scam relies on being
> able to cause players to perform arbitrary actions at power 1 (making me
> assume Pariah, an action, is different from causing me to beco
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Murphy and I are now the only players
CoE: comex and I are the only players of Agora Nomic, and this message
was not the public forum.
On Sun, 2011-01-23 at 10:56 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> [This esclation attempt could be done solo, but I included Murphy
> as an auditor to make sure I didn't trash the game, as it's a
> rather scorched earth approach. Before I start, be aware (if you
> get annoyed while reading) that there's
On 11-01-23 02:17 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
On 11-01-23 01:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
This time to the proper forum:
I deregister.
If you are going to deregister everyone for a scam, prepare to live with
the consequences.
-scshunt
Also I heartily encourage all other Agorans to do the same.
-scsh
G. wrote:
> [I plan to resolve it Assessor in ~four days.
You missed changing this bit. Of course, you could just as well
cause R2324 to make yourself Assessor when the time comes.
On 11-01-23 01:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I deregister.
-scshunt
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> [Bug 1: Activity is not secured; this is a security hole for quorum
> and other purposes].
Heh, after going over this for four days and reviewing it with Murphy,
of course 5minuts *after* I send it I realize I could have used Inactivity
plus A
29 matches
Mail list logo
