root wrote:
> On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Oh, this is just a specious analogy. "Without objection"'s public
>> mechanism and waiting period strongly implies that you are asking for
>> tacit permission from the public to perform the action, and that
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In other
> words, doing something W/O objection is *not* something you could
> legally do without allowing for true (dependent on others) review.
I never said it was. It is, however, something I could *generally*
do. Rule
On Fri, 9 May 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Oh, this is just a specious analogy. "Without objection"'s public
>> mechanism and waiting period strongly implies that you are asking for
>> tacit permission from the public to perf
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh, this is just a specious analogy. "Without objection"'s public
> mechanism and waiting period strongly implies that you are asking for
> tacit permission from the public to perform the action, and that you
> can't perform
On Fri, 9 May 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 8 May 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> I can also go to the bank and deposit my cash, provided I have the
>> cooperation of the muggers not to intercept me en route. By this
>> argument then, depositing cash at the bank would analogously not be "a
>> poss
On Fri, 9 May 2008, Buddha Buck wrote:
> In short, a person can declare emself to be a player.
E can announce emself to be a player which is what your CFJ
is about, which I think is trivially true (so do you). But
"declare" is not necessarily "announce" if it not in the PF.
Still, sorry about
On Fri, 9 May 2008, Buddha Buck wrote:
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 1. A person can declare emself a person, but can't declare emself a player
>> other than through the registration process.
>
> I'm not sure I agree.
>
> I call for judgement on the
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> I can also go to the bank and deposit my cash, provided I have the
> cooperation of the muggers not to intercept me en route. By this
> argument then, depositing cash at the bank would analogously not be "a
> possible action I could take".
Oh, this is just
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 1. A person can declare emself a person, but can't declare emself a player
>> other than through the registration process.
>
> I'm not sure I agree.
On Thursday 8 May 2008 6:45:24 Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Fair point. However:
> > "Could" is the subjunctive form of "can" (R754(1)), as in "I can join
> > the AAA today; I could have joined the AAA yesterday." "Can" SHOULD
> > be t
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fair point. However:
> "Could" is the subjunctive form of "can" (R754(1)), as in "I can join
> the AAA today; I could have joined the AAA yesterday." "Can" SHOULD
> be taken to mean "CAN" (R2152).
Hrm. I wonder if that use of
On Thursday 8 May 2008 5:39:14 Ian Kelly wrote:
> "CAN" and "could" are not synonymous. If the phrase used by R2169 is
> intended to mean "...the possible agreements that the parties CAN
> make...", then it should say that. Currently, it does not.
Fair point. However:
"Could" is the subjunctive
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 8 May 2008 4:26:23 Ian Kelly wrote:
>> I can also go to the bank and deposit my cash, provided I have the
>> cooperation of the muggers not to intercept me en route. By this
>> argument then, depositing cash at the
On Thursday 8 May 2008 4:26:23 Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thursday 8 May 2008 11:43:32 Ian Kelly wrote:
> >> I could make the agreement. I could make the agreement a contest.
> >> Therefore the contest is a possible agreement I c
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I posit that it is inappropriate to apply an equity judgement that
> any reasonable person would find goes "beyond equity" (or as root
> admits, "equity with gravy") in applying a benefit to one or more
> parties.
I disagree,
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 8 May 2008 11:43:32 Ian Kelly wrote:
>> I could make the agreement. I could make the agreement a contest.
>> Therefore the contest is a possible agreement I could make. What's so
>> complicated about that?
>
> It'
On Thursday 8 May 2008 11:43:32 Ian Kelly wrote:
> I could make the agreement. I could make the agreement a contest.
> Therefore the contest is a possible agreement I could make. What's so
> complicated about that?
It's not possible for you to do so truly unilaterally. In a certain
sense, yes, n
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wouldn't be surprised either argument prevailing here (and I wouldn't
> appeal one going your way, though I would appeal one based on R101). It
> was always risky to give equity cases the ability to affect things
> flexibly
Goethe wrote:
> The confusion of case law finally reached the point that it was stated
> very explicitly in Rule 101/2 (Power=3) introduced by Maud, August 2005:
>
>Agora May I?
>
> Any player is permitted to perform an action which is not
> regulated. An action is regulated if
Wooble wrote:
> In any case, there appears to be precedent beyond just game custom
> that regulated actions are impossible to perform unless otherwise
> authorized by the rules, but unfortunately the CotC database stops 2
> cases later than the one I found cited (CFJ 1237), but CFJ 1295a does
> sa
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> I could make the agreement. I could make the agreement a contest.
> Therefore the contest is a possible agreement I could make. What's so
> complicated about that?
Sorry to get on aside about "regulation" and R101, that was a side-issue
without bearing he
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 May 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> I don't see how you claim that "this judgement makes this contract
>> into a contest" is equivalent to "the following agreement is a
>> contest".
>
> They are both "I say it is, therefo
(Condensing replies to save emails...)
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 4:36 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 8 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
>> No, it doesn't have to take precedence over 2125. All 2125 implies is that
>> the
>> action of creating a contest is "regulated". Searchi
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> I don't see how you claim that "this judgement makes this contract
> into a contest" is equivalent to "the following agreement is a
> contest".
They are both "I say it is, therefore it is" and in that sense
equivalent(ly ineffective).
-Goethe
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 4:30 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "The valid judgements for this question are the possible agreements
>> that the parties could make that would be governed by the rules."
>
> So you've made your agreement. The agreement exists. I don't doubt
> that. But R2
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 4:11 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But it does make being a contest regulated via 2125(b). And there's no
> backing at all for your assertion that judgements can arbitrarily
> change or set regulated properties. In fact that assertion is
> discredited. Sayin
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> In any case, there appears to be precedent beyond just game custom
> that regulated actions are impossible to perform unless otherwise
> authorized by the rules, but unfortunately the CotC database stops 2
> cases later than the one I found cited (CFJ 12
On 5/8/08, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Contest-ness is tracked by Agorans within Agoran records, and is not
> "part of" the contract. Is the fact that you are supine, leaning,
> standing, etc. an intrinsic part of yourself? Or is it an external
> label applied by Agoran rules?
It se
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 6:54 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal (AI=3,II=1):
> Amend rule 2125 by adding, at the end:
> "A player MAY NOT perform a regulated action except when permitted to
> do so by an instrument with power at least 0.1".
I think this
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
> I call for judgement on the statement "If a rule states that an action
> is regulated, that does not prevent that action from taking place, but
> only prevents that thing from taking place under rule 101(ii) (and
> therefore makes it impossible to take
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
> But rule 101 doesn't prevent players doing anything. Rule 101 is entirely
> concerned with allowing players to do things (as its title suggests).
No, the fact that the Rules exist at all and Players bind themselves to the
Rules prevents players from d
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
> Goethe wrote:
>> Once regulated, a quantity can only be changed by methods contained
>> in the rules.
> Can you give a citation for that? From my quick grepping of the rules,
> the only effect that I saw regulating something had was to prevent that
> so
...
--
ais523
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Kerim Aydin
Sent: Thu 08/05/2008 11:36
To: Agora Discussion
Subject: RE: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1932 assigned to ais523
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
> No, it doesn't have to take preceden
Goethe wrote:
> Once regulated, a quantity can only be changed by methods contained
> in the rules.
Can you give a citation for that? From my quick grepping of the rules,
the only effect that I saw regulating something had was to prevent that
something from taking place under rule 101(ii). You're c
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
> No, it doesn't have to take precedence over 2125. All 2125 implies is that the
> action of creating a contest is "regulated". Searching the ruleset for words
> starting "regulat" finds that the only relevant affect that this has is to
> prevent rule 101
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
> rule 2169/4 isn't powerful enough to make gamestate changes above power
> 1.7 (but /is/ powerful enough to create a contest, as the definition of
> a contest has a power of 1).
Um, no. R2125 states that regulated quantities are regulated quantities,
r
oment think that
there's a conflict between rules 2136 and 2169, but some other arguments
I've seen here seem to imply that there is.
--
ais523
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Kerim Aydin
Sent: Thu 08/05/2008 11:13
To: Agora Discussion
Subject: RE: DIS: Re
o arbitrary rules
changes. (If it did, then no doubt someone, probably root, would have
used it to win by now.)
--
ais523
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Ian Kelly
Sent: Thu 08/05/2008 00:08
To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: [CotC] CF
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
> Oh, and rule 2169 takes precedence over rule 2136 anyway (it's more powerful).
That doesn't matter if there's no conflict. And if this is interpreted being
a conflict, it would have to take precedence over 2125 (power-3) as well.
-Goethe
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> ACK: Agora says: "now that you entered a contest as judgement in an
> equity case, and that contract has gone into effect per Rule 2169, you
> are recognized by our rules as a contest..." Rule 2136 does not say
> that it can be the only means to creating a
Oh, and rule 2169 takes precedence over rule 2136 anyway (it's more powerful).
--
ais523
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Ian Kelly
Sent: Thu 08/05/2008 07:53
To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1932 assigned to ais523
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:00 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> SYN: The contract can say "This shall become a contest", "This is
> intended to be a contest" or even "This is a contest and I don't care
> if the Rules say it isn't!" It can then proceed on its merry way,
> posting rec
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A confession! "Gravy" = "benefit in the other direction beyond equity" means
> the judgement is inequitable and inappropriate: judges take note. Still,
> gravy or equity, that's a side note.
Nonsense, a contract is not
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 10:40 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Furthermore, Enigma explicitly acknowledges that it is /intended/ to be
> a contest ("The purpose of this contract is to be a contest..."), and
> thus implicitly acknowledges that it will fail to operate as intended
> if it
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Furthermore, Enigma explicitly acknowledges that it is /intended/ to be
> a contest ("The purpose of this contract is to be a contest..."), and
> thus implicitly acknowledges that it will fail to operate as intended
> if it loses that status.
It's sort of a
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> Previous equity judgements were not so
>> cleanly enumerated and yet all material considerations contained therein
>> were part of the agreements.
>
> No, it was only paragraph 1) that created equity. Everything else
> about the contract was gravy.
A c
Goethe wrote:
> On Wed, 7 May 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> I should have followed this up with an example. An existing contest
>> seems apropos. Would you not agree that the Enigma contract's
>> contesthood is a part of that agreement? Or similarly, that the
>> Pineapple Partnership's partnershiph
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> I should have followed this up with an example. An existing contest
> seems apropos. Would you not agree that the Enigma contract's
> contesthood is a part of that agreement? Or similarly, that the
> Pineapple Partnership's partnershiphood is a part of tha
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2. If we are generous, ignore the minor semantic mistake, and and allow
> > that the preamble is a part of the judgement, then the declaration of
> > contest-ness is part of the agreement.
> >
> > If it *is* part of
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Noticed that afterwards, but I don't think it changed my argument. For
> one thing, even though you enumerated some clauses separately, the fact
> that you considered the result to be a contest was essential to your
> per
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 4. But nothing in the above set of events "made" the agreement a
>> contest. The contest says it is, but that doesn't automatically
>> trigger that condition.
>
> Actually, i
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 4. But nothing in the above set of events "made" the agreement a
> contest. The contest says it is, but that doesn't automatically
> trigger that condition.
Actually, it doesn't, apart from using the term contestma
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> I don't follow this. How are arbitrary gamestate changes made by
> establishing a contract? Contesthood is an attribute of a contract,
> and it's reasonable to define that attribute when specifying the
> contract.
Actually, it's not reasonable. Most con
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think accepting your logic would imply that an equation can make any
> arbitrary change to the gamestate, since a parties to a contract could
> agree to some arbitrary other contract and then incidentally go on to
> t
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, and I believe the judge has the power to create the same
> agreement that you could create yourself. I don't believe e has the
> power to make it into a contest absent the explicit power to do so
> being granted b
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > OK, it looks like this case is applicabl
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > OK, it looks like this case is applicable now. My judgement is the
57 matches
Mail list logo
