On Wed, 3 Jul 2013, Steven Gardner wrote:
My dim recollection is that it took a kind of high level scam (in the sense
of loophole exploitation, there was no attempt to win) to move away from the
Mutable/Immutable distinction. But we didn't get straight to the Power
system - that came later. The
My dim recollection is that it took a kind of high level scam (in the sense
of loophole exploitation, there was no attempt to win) to move away from
the Mutable/Immutable distinction. But we didn't get straight to the Power
system - that came later. The intermediate stage involved the definition of
That was one of the ideas, yes. Not the only one. :)
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: agora-discussion [mailto:agora-discussion-boun...@agoranomic.org] On
Behalf Of Fool
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 12:19 PM
To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
Subject: Re: DIS: Agora XX: 13th and final
On Mon, 1 Jul 2013, Chuck Carroll wrote:
I also have an idea or two about how a group of players could get around the
requirement of unanimity for making a rule mutable against a single player
determined to prevent all such transmutations.
My vague memory is that something like that is how Ago
On Mon, 1 Jul 2013, Chuck Carroll wrote:
A very similar thought had occurred to me, except the Speaker could do even
better than independently selecting a Judge for each possible set; e could
link the sets in such a way to maximize the probability that the same Judge
is selected for each set. I'
On Mon, 1 Jul 2013, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I thought at one point the complete silence at how one becomes a player
> > was quite weak (I guess it came up with the forfeiture-forcing). Walker,
> > consider taking note! -G.
>
> Incidentally, I disli
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I thought at one point the complete silence at how one becomes a player
> was quite weak (I guess it came up with the forfeiture-forcing). Walker,
> consider taking note! -G.
Incidentally, I disliked the judgement that a requirement for some
On Mon, 1 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
> On 01/07/2013 2:54 AM, Chuck Carroll wrote:
> > I also have an idea or two about how a group of players could get around the
> > requirement of unanimity for making a rule mutable against a single player
> > determined to prevent all such transmutations.
> >
>
On 01/07/2013 2:54 AM, Chuck Carroll wrote:
I also have an idea or two about how a group of players could get around the
requirement of unanimity for making a rule mutable against a single player
determined to prevent all such transmutations.
The majority can kick the minority out of the game,
On Mon, 2013-07-01 at 10:21 -0400, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Question for omd: did you have a clever way to win had 363 put us into
> > Zeno's Endgame? I came up with a couple thoughts but not particularly
> > compelling ones. -G.
>
> Not really, since
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Question for omd: did you have a clever way to win had 363 put us into
> Zeno's Endgame? I came up with a couple thoughts but not particularly
> compelling ones. -G.
Not really, since a quorum would still be required to pass anything
and it w
On Mon, 1 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
> On 01/07/2013 12:35 AM, Chuck Carroll wrote:
> > Like others have mentioned, I like the idea of a Nomic with a defined
> > endpoint (being well aware, of course, that there is no guarantee
> > that the endpoint will remain unchanged) in which I can most likely
>
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> I like this idea, and was the spirit of what I was going for in my
> proposal to make Agora XX resume annually. The holiday idea is also a
> good one; could we perhaps replace the current Christmas time holiday?
> As a student I have lots of time free
On Mon, 1 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
> On 01/07/2013 12:35 AM, Chuck Carroll wrote:
> > Like others have mentioned, I like the idea of a Nomic with a defined
> > endpoint (being well aware, of course, that there is no guarantee
> > that the endpoint will remain unchanged) in which I can most likely
>
On Mon, 1 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
> On 30/06/2013 5:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Of course, Blob's version of "innocuous" wasn't... so we sure didn't have a
> > commanding lead going into the last vote. At the end we knew if everyone in
> > the
> > game voted and spent their points on voting we'd
ermined to prevent all such transmutations.
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: agora-discussion [mailto:agora-discussion-boun...@agoranomic.org] On
Behalf Of Fool
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 1:39 AM
To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
Subject: Re: DIS: Agora XX: 13th and final report
On 01/07/201
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Steven Gardner
wrote:
> On 1 July 2013 14:35, Chuck Carroll wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks to all the players, especially my fellow winners, and many many
>> thanks to Fool for running such an enjoyable game. Like others have
>> mentioned, I like the idea of a Nomic w
On 1 July 2013 14:35, Chuck Carroll wrote:
> ** **
>
> Thanks to all the players, especially my fellow winners, and many many
> thanks to Fool for running such an enjoyable game. Like others have
> mentioned, I like the idea of a Nomic with a defined endpoint (being well
> aware, of course, that
On 01/07/2013 12:35 AM, Chuck Carroll wrote:
Like others have mentioned, I like the idea of a Nomic with a defined
endpoint (being well aware, of course, that there is no guarantee
that the endpoint will remain unchanged) in which I can most likely
play for just a few weeks.
But there was a gua
On 30/06/2013 5:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Of course, Blob's version of "innocuous" wasn't... so we sure didn't have a
commanding lead going into the last vote. At the end we knew if everyone in the
game voted and spent their points on voting we'd not get through, but just
shrugged, decided not t
> To my surprise and delight, Chuck almost immediately discovered the germ
> of
> an idea for a plausible Win By Paradox. I would have been very happy to
> see
> Chuck declared sole winner in this fashion. But Walker and Michael
> patiently and ingeniously picked apart his argument.
It
I'd say the coalition had its seeds in my first message to Steve, passing on
the Agora XX invitation. Our first question was "how are we going to win this?"
I'd like to echo my thanks to all involved. Good times.
Malcolm
On 01/07/2013, at 3:14 AM, Fool wrote:
> I've hosted and played in non-No
Yes, I should be available at that time.
Blob
On 01/07/2013, at 12:02 AM, Charles Walker wrote:
> On 30 June 2013 14:48, Steven Gardner wrote:
>> For my part, 9pm local time (1100 UTC), after the kids are in bed, is when
>> I'm more likely to have time to chat.
>>
>> But tomorrow (Monday) nigh
On 1 July 2013 03:14, Fool wrote:
>
> There was some talk of legalism/logicism or idealism/pragmatism. Maybe
> relative to the group I'm very far off one end of these scales. I also
> expect the question of _objectives_ made a big difference. On the last
> turn, a fairly large coalition simply vo
[oops, hit 'send' while I was just starting to type the previous message].
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jun 2013, Fool wrote:
> >
> > There was some talk of legalism/logicism or idealism/pragmatism. Maybe
> > relative to the group I'm very far off one end of these scales.
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013, Fool wrote:
> I've hosted and played in non-Nomic Blitz PBM games before, and, while this
> isn't the most argumentative bunch I've seen by any means, I have to say this
> group produced the highest quality logical and legal argumentation I've ever
> seen. I was really impr
On 30 June 2013 21:50, Fool wrote:
> On 30/06/2013 3:47 PM, Charles Walker wrote:
>> Well, I don't particularly care about Win by Paradox (it depends if
>> the game ends when someone wins as to whether I would repeal it)
>
>
> I realise a "win" is mostly cosmetic in Agora, but ordinarily it would
On 30/06/2013 3:47 PM, Charles Walker wrote:
Well, I don't particularly care about Win by Paradox (it depends if
the game ends when someone wins as to whether I would repeal it)
I realise a "win" is mostly cosmetic in Agora, but ordinarily it would
end the game. Win by paradox would have ende
On 30 June 2013 18:14, Fool wrote:
> Agoran CFJs take days or weeks. In XX it was 24 hours, and people were
> online at different times. In some cases it seemed like people were cranking
> out these fairly long well-reasoned monologues out on the fly. I guess that
> comes with experience or someth
I've hosted and played in non-Nomic Blitz PBM games before, and, while
this isn't the most argumentative bunch I've seen by any means, I have
to say this group produced the highest quality logical and legal
argumentation I've ever seen. I was really impressed. I thought there
was some excellent
On 29/06/2013 5:02 PM, omd wrote:
Okay, the big question, 364. It affects more than the final scores, it
affects whether the surviving player with the most points won, or whether
the old-timers jointly won. (_Surviving_ player, if that's where you're
going with this... proposal 363 failed. No mat
On 30 June 2013 15:28, Steven Gardner wrote:
> Wait though: 9pm in Melbourne is 11am in London, but 4am in Los Angeles and
> 7am in New York. Fine for Europeans, but terrible for Americans. Aren't most
> of the currently registered Agoran players Americans?
Yes: apart from me and ais523, I think
Wait though: 9pm in Melbourne is 11am in London, but 4am in Los Angeles and
7am in New York. Fine for Europeans, but terrible for Americans. Aren't
most of the currently registered Agoran players Americans?
On 1 July 2013 00:02, Charles Walker wrote:
> On 30 June 2013 14:48, Steven Gardner wro
On 30 June 2013 14:48, Steven Gardner wrote:
> For my part, 9pm local time (1100 UTC), after the kids are in bed, is when
> I'm more likely to have time to chat.
>
> But tomorrow (Monday) night I'll probably be out seeing a friend, and
> Tuesday I'm leaving for a family holiday for 5 days and I'm
For my part, 9pm local time (1100 UTC), after the kids are in bed, is when
I'm more likely to have time to chat.
But tomorrow (Monday) night I'll probably be out seeing a friend, and
Tuesday I'm leaving for a family holiday for 5 days and I'm unlikely to
have internet access. So unless you're will
On 30 Jun 2013, at 13:01, Michael Norrish wrote:
> Now in the same Australian time-zone as Blob and Steve, rather than the
> Wellington zone that I was in when the game began, I'm afraid the IRC
> chat due in 9 hours from now is not likely to see me involved.
As that makes three of the four old-t
Reiterating other messages: thanks muchly to the organisers and
participants for this speed nomic game. I was pleased to get to make a
proposal, judge a CFJ and vote on a bunch of proposals. In other words,
it was a great sampler. And as Steve said, the defined end-point was a
feature that made
On 30 Jun 2013, at 03:24, Steven Gardner wrote:
> On 29 June 2013 22:37, Fool wrote:
>> It has been my pleasure to be your Speaker for this bit of fast-paced
>> nonsense. I discharge my last formal duty by including the final ruleset
>> below. I will also post an end-of-game statement, and I e
On 29 June 2013 22:37, Fool wrote:
> It has been my pleasure to be your Speaker for this bit of fast-paced
> nonsense. I discharge my last formal duty by including the final ruleset
> below. I will also post an end-of-game statement, and I encourage other
> players to do likewise.
>
> Thanks for
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Fool wrote:
> The previous version of poor rule 112, much vandalised and abused over its
> sorry existence, extends the game to allow the final proposals to resolve,
> and in any case, it didn't actually end the game
Ah, my mistake.
> Was your vote on 363 a delib
On 29/06/2013 1:16 PM, com...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 29, 2013, at 8:37 AM, Fool wrote:
Good day Agorans,
Ah... one thing. Didn't we have a ruling that proposals do not take effect
until the voting results are announced? Since, unless I'm mixing up time zones
on my phone, this was sent af
On Jun 29, 2013, at 8:37 AM, Fool wrote:
> Good day Agorans,
Ah... one thing. Didn't we have a ruling that proposals do not take effect
until the voting results are announced? Since, unless I'm mixing up time zones
on my phone, this was sent after 12:04 UTC, the game ended before the proposal
On Sat, 29 Jun 2013, Fool wrote:
> Proposition 364 (Steve) passes 17:12 with Steve(x6), Chuck(x4), Ørjan,
> Michael(x2), and Goethe(x4) FOR; Walker(x5), omd(x5), woggle, and Yally
> AGAINST. This gives Steve 10 extra points for passing a proposal. Then it
> amends rule 344, re-instates Blob, and
On Sat, 29 Jun 2013, Fool wrote:
And we have a last minute registration, Ørjan. Just in time to lose!
Yay!
* resolves to read proposals before voting on them in the future :P
Greetings,
Ørjan, still an old-timer in spirit.
On 29/06/2013 9:18 AM, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 29 June 2013 13:37, Fool wrote:
Alex Hunt
what
SMITH! I MEANT SMITH! ARGH!
sorry Alex. :(
On 29 June 2013 13:37, Fool wrote:
> Alex Hunt
what
46 matches
Mail list logo
