On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On the other hand, we *are* trying to model a "fair" judicial system, so
>> bribery for judges is a different (i.e. more frowned-upon) matter.
>
> I'
On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 13:25 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
> I believe such actions would be interesting to experiment with here in
> Agora. I strongly believe such actions should not be experimented with
> at the State or Federal level of a world superpower.
Well, B Nomic has Oracularities, which is so
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Haven't you followed modern american judicial proceedings? The law be
>> damned. Legislation from the bench is the new politically correct
>> wave. It
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
>> 2008/6/30 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> Haven't you followed modern american judicial proceedings?
>
> Religiously (ooh, bad word choice). I'd agree with you if you say t
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm working on a proto that brings back the three-tiered Ordinary->
>> Democratic -> Sane. Along with cards. Stay tuned. But yes, I fully
>> agree that there should *always* be a
2008/6/30 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Religiously (ooh, bad word choice)
Somehow I think the "dead persons = people" debate will go that way.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] death
ehird
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Haven't you followed modern american judicial proceedings? The law be
> damned. Legislation from the bench is the new politically correct
> wave. It is a convenient way to override the inconvenient majority.
Not to turn thi
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm working on a proto that brings back the three-tiered Ordinary->
> Democratic -> Sane. Along with cards. Stay tuned. But yes, I fully
> agree that there should *always* be a high-powered "safe mode" that is a
> straigh
2008/6/30 Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I fully support legislative play for ordinary decisions, but not
> democratic decisions. As far as I'm concerned, the point of the
> distinction is to have a playground for decisions on things that won't
> completely change things, but when there are important
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2008/6/30 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Haven't you followed modern american judicial proceedings?
Religiously (ooh, bad word choice). I'd agree with you if you say the
"modern" trend began with Marbury v. Madison (1803).
-Goethe
2008/6/30 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Haven't you followed modern american judicial proceedings? The law be
> damned. Legislation from the bench is the new politically correct
> wave. It is a convenient way to override the inconvenient majority.
>
> BobTHJ
>
Let's adopt it posthaste.
ehird
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On the other hand, we *are* trying to model a "fair" judicial system, so
>>> bribery for judges is a d
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Sgeo wrote:
>> Keeping in mind there are some who have frowned upon legislative play too,
>> and believe 1 person/1 vote and no bribery for all proposals should be
>> relatively sacred. And of course those who don't mind bribing judges :).
>
> I fully support legislative play
> Keeping in mind there are some who have frowned upon legislative play too,
> and believe 1 person/1 vote and no bribery for all proposals should be
> relatively sacred. And of course those who don't mind bribing judges :).
I fully support legislative play for ordinary decisions, but not
democra
2008/6/30 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Keeping in mind there are some who have frowned upon legislative play too,
> and believe 1 person/1 vote
Democratic revolutionaries! :P
ehird
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On the other hand, we *are* trying to model a "fair" judicial system, so
>> bribery for judges is a different (i.e. more frowned-upon) matter.
>>
>
> I'm curious why one and not th
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well it's classic Nomic prisoners dilemma etc., but I disagree that
> it's boring, any more than playing Werewolf (that's been played many
> times before) is boring.
The prisoner's dilemma gets a lot less interesting when yo
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On the other hand, we *are* trying to model a "fair" judicial system, so
> bribery for judges is a different (i.e. more frowned-upon) matter.
>
I'm curious why one and not the other?
BobTHJ
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Zefram wrote:
> Quazie wrote:
>> I was just surprised to find that Bribing wasn't illegal, thats all,
>> so I decided to see what would happen.
>
> Precedent is that it gets voted down. The *first* bribery attempt of
> a novel type generally succeeds, but reiterations are fro
Quazie wrote:
>I was just surprised to find that Bribing wasn't illegal, thats all,
>so I decided to see what would happen.
Precedent is that it gets voted down. The *first* bribery attempt of
a novel type generally succeeds, but reiterations are frowned upon.
(Your prisoners' dilemma proposal mi
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Quazie wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Quazie wrote:
>>> Proposal 'Another bribe?' AI=2 ii=1
>>
>> Been done before. Boring.
>>
>> -zefram
>>
> I was just surprised to find that Bribing wasn't illegal, thats all,
> so I decided t
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quazie wrote:
>>Proposal 'Another bribe?' AI=2 ii=1
>
> Been done before. Boring.
>
> -zefram
>
I was just surprised to find that Bribing wasn't illegal, thats all,
so I decided to see what would happen.
Quazie wrote:
>Proposal 'Another bribe?' AI=2 ii=1
Been done before. Boring.
-zefram
Bribing officials is bad, as they're supposed to do what the people
(via legislation) want them to. Is bribing people bad, as they're
supposed to do what they themselves want them to?
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
I don't see the point. For a government, bribes are bad. But our game
of Agora is based around the concepts of scamming, bribing, and being
a sneaky little twerp. People should be allowed to vote however is
necessary or advantageous to them.
avpx
Direct consequences of taking an unbribable action or not performing
that action are secured by this rule to be those defined by the rule
that defines the unbribable action in question.
erm, rules to the contrary notwithstanding
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:45 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Protoproposal "Unbribed Actions" AI=3 II=3
>
> "Bribability " is a switch on game actions performable by first-class
> players. Options are bribable (default) and unbribable. Changes to
> bribability are secured. If a
> first-c
Protoproposal "Unbribed Actions" AI=3 II=3
"Bribable " is a switch on game actions performable by first-class
players. Options are bribable (default) and unbribable. If a
first-class player breaks a rule by performing an unbribable action,
or not performing an unbribable action, and a differen
Protoproposal "Unbribed Actions" AI=3 II=3
"Bribable " is a switch on game actions performable by first-class
players. Options are bribable (default) and unbribable. If a
first-class player breaks a rule by performing an unbribable action,
or not performing an unbribable action, and a different fi
Maybe if a rule tells someone that they must do something like vote a
certain way on a democratic question, if a criminal CFJ is called
against that person, they are EXCUSED, or maybe a new judgement..
2008/6/27 Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Proposal titled "Defend Democracy!" AI>=1.5 II=?
> No agreement is allowed to force a person to vote a certain way or to
> not vote on any democratic decision.
>
This is against the Spirit of the Game, I think.
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Proposal titled "Defend Democracy!" AI>=1.5 II=?
>> No agreement is allowed to force a person to vote a certain way or to
>> not vote on any democratic d
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Proposal titled "Defend Democracy!" AI>=1.5 II=?
>> No agreement is allowed to force a person to vote a certain way or to
>> not vote on any democratic d
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proposal titled "Defend Democracy!" AI>=1.5 II=?
> No agreement is allowed to force a person to vote a certain way or to
> not vote on any democratic decision.
>
I fear that this is going to be buggy no matter what you do. Imagine a
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proposal titled "Defend Democracy!" AI>=1.5 II=?
> No agreement is allowed to force a person to vote a certain way or to
> not vote on any democratic decision.
>
Erm, replace "person" with "first-class player"
36 matches
Mail list logo
