I'm not a player. I'm just spying on you hatless evildoers.
On 15 May 2013 15:14, "Jonathan Rouillard"
wrote:
>
> However, marking it as abandoned doesn't feel right - the players
> didn't abandon the game, it just ended properly.
So, "ended properly" was a possibility not hitherto contemplated by Agora?
Another possibility probably not contemplated by
Ah, trying to use crypto to do simultaneous moves.
Simultaneous votes on some things can be way more interesting, for
instance in "prisoner's dilemma" type situations. Otherwise the
advantage goes to whoever's checking the mailing list closest to the
deadline.
Now, am I mistaken that the ini
E can also send scrambled codebooks to one or more participants. This would
be detected by the victims after the fact, but they could not prove it.
This was indeed a serious problem with the original version, which I
should have realized immediately, but the version up for vote has
fixed it, a
"Lawyers and logicians also have different concepts of solving a
problem.
Just wondering, is anyone here a lawyer? I mean, by profession, not in
any allegorical sense.
(anyone except Ienpw III, who didn't see me.)
-Dan Mehkeri
Is this (and a bunch of other CFJs on the topic of paradoxes) all about
rule 2358? Why not just change that?
-Dan
Is this (and a bunch of other CFJs on the topic of paradoxes) all about rule
2358? Why not just change that?
Although Rule 2358 mostly depends on the traditional interpretation of
paradoxes as causing fundamental logical indeterminacy, and might have
to be changed if this CFJ finds otherwise, pa
Kerim Aydin, Wed, 12 Jun 2013 07:37:53 -0700 :
Some history:
From 2002 (when I started) to 2005 no one thought about paradoxes at all in
this sense. Paradoxical CFJ statements were simply DISMISSED as meaningless.
I think the aforementioned lawyer had a hand in creating this system (before
my t
omd, Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:35:23 -0700 :
> Precedence between rules (though not clauses) was largely the same in
> 2005 as it is now; the wording of the card paradox is "that card shall
> be deemed to have not been played", which is not really a rule
> conflict, though it could arguably be interpre
Kerim Aydin, Thu, 13 Jun 2013 21:58:26 -0700 :
For that matter, is the card paradox still compelling? I had a look at the
current ruleset and I'd guess that nowadays the card paradox would be
resolved by R1030 ("In a conflict between rules...") or R2240 ("In a
conflict between clauses of the same
1. An accelerated game of Nomic, starting from Agora's initial
ruleset (possibly slightly modified if necessary), but made so that
timelimits are extremely short. The game would have an immutable rule
ending it within a week if it hadn't already, the winner being the
player with the most points. H
On 17/06/2013 8:21 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Fool wrote:
I designate the agora-business mailing list for playing this game
(rule 107). If this causes annoyance to the non-players we can move.
Please. Anywhere but a public forum.
-scshunt
Meaning you'd act
On 17/06/2013 8:29 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Fool wrote:
Meaning you'd actually prefer it on agora-discussion? It seems to me the
discussion forum is busier, but I defer to you guys.
Or if you meant not on agoranomic.org at all, I'll GTFO :)
-Dan
I
begins
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 20:19:36 -0400
From: Fool
To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org
Greetings Agorans,
I have appointed myself to the Speakership of Agora's Vigintennial
Blitz game (AKA "Agora XX"). I commit to you all that I shall make
myself availble for the duties of Sp
Good day Agorans,
This time of day (around 11:00 UTC) will be my usual reporting time.
There's not much to report today. There have been no proposals. The
ruleset is unchanged, I will not repeat it.
There are three new Voters: omd, Flameshadowxeroshin, and Walker joined,
in that order, bri
On 17/06/2013 9:06 PM, omd wrote:
Vigintennial Blitz CFJ: If a proposal purports to reward or penalize
voters based on the votes they cast on that proposal, or based on any
other action taken / not taken by any player prior to the end of the
voting period on that proposal, then that proposal will
On 18/06/2013 4:46 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
From only having Watched with half an ear,
and Listened with one eye,
how does Agora XX work and which list would I have to be on to play
it? I've gathered it's a speed Agora, right?
Yup, speed Agora, this list, and I reposted the 1st report so
On 18/06/2013 7:58 AM, Chuck Carroll wrote:
I join Agora XX.
Chuck
Well, hog tie me to a TTY and set my wizard bit, look who's here!
-Dan
Hello all,
A report in about 11h. Here I'll only number and repeat the proposals
made so far, so that you can vote by just replying to this message. You
can vote privately, as omd reminds you.
Voting on these four closes in 24h.
-Dan
301 (Chuck):
> I propose that Rule 211 be amended to read
Retrying with a "reply-to" header so that you'll reply to me by default.
Original Message
Subject: Agora XX proposals 301-304
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:28:19 -0400
From: Fool
To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
Hello all,
A report in about 11h. Here I
Proposal 7476 (AI=2, PF=Y0, Ordinary, Disinterested) by scshunt
Staledated
Amend Rule 879 to read "Quorum on an Agoran Decision is the greater
of one-third the number of active players and 5."
The rule used to be "eligible voters with a positive voting limit on
that decision" rather than "ac
Good day Agorans,
Since last report there were four proposals, and two new
registrations, Chuck and ehird. The rules have not yet been changed.
The four proposals were numbered 301-304 and voting closes in about 13
hours. The five Voters now are omd, FSX, Walker, Chuck, and ehird. Then
the
Hello,
Voting is closed on these. Full report in about 10 hours, but the
following happens:
301 (by Chuck) passes (FOR: Chuck,Walker,ehird; AGAINST: omd)
- 301 amends 211.
- Chuck +(random 1-10 6) and omd +2 by 301.
302 (by Walker) passes (FOR: FSX,Walker,ehird; AGAINST: omd,Chuck)
-
Hello all,
Here I'll only number and repeat the one proposal made that hasn't yet
been numbered. You can vote by just replying to this message, privately
if you like.
Voting on this closes in 24h.
-Dan
305 (Chuck):
I propose that the following rule be created:
No rule may award or penaliz
On 19/06/2013 6:14 PM, omd wrote:
I don't care about winning, at least the way wins usually work in
Agora ...
(as opposed to wins such as paradoxes which somewhat cheapen the
whole concept)
Hey! Aren't you about to win by CFJ 3334?
But I'm glad to hear people's thoughts on this topic.
Now
On 19/06/2013 4:43 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I think instead of kudos, we should start awarding dope slaps.
Or maybe give the Herald a rubber chicken.
Maybe you need a sort of anti-Herald to hand out this kind of
anti-award. I dunno, some sort of Fool perhaps.
I'll send a report out shortly. Here I'm numbering and repeating the two
new proposals. As always you can vote by just replying to this message,
privately if you like.
Voting on these closes in 24h.
-Dan
306 (omd):
I propose that a rule be enacted as follows:
A player may transfer points
Good day Agorans,
Since last report, proposals 301, 302, and 304 were adopted, while
303 failed. The overall change to the ruleset is just that 211 is
amended, now 302. The current ruleset is included at the end of this
message.
There are three new proposals. Voting on 305 closes in about
Voting on 305 closes in about an hour. 306 and 307 close in about 11
hours. Here I'm just numbering and repeating the two new proposals. As
always you can vote by just replying to this message, privately if you like.
Voting on these closes in 24h.
-Dan
308 (Chuck):
I propose that Rule 110
Voting is closed on this. It passes 2:1 (Chuck,Yally vs Walker). This
enacts rule 305. Chuck +10 and Walker +2 by rule 302. Full report in
about 10 hours.
Voting on 306-309 is still open. Vote early, vote often!
-Dan
305 (Chuck):
I propose that the following rule be created:
No rule may
Voting on 306 and 307 has closed. 308 and 309 still open for 12 hours.
Here I just number and repeat the new proposal. Voting on it closes in
24 hours. Full report shortly.
-Dan
310 (Walker):
> I propose that Rule 114 be made mutable.
Good day Agorans,
Since last report, proposals 305 and 306 were adopted, and 307
failed. This adds two new mutable rules. 305 forbids bribery, and 306
allows points to be transfered by announcement. The current ruleset is
included at the end of this message.
The passage of 305 (Chuck) was
On 21/06/2013 1:32 AM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Michael Norrish
wrote:
I register for the Agora XX game.
Michael
Now I feel like there was no reason to modify Rule 104.
I know eh! Should we be taking bets on Peter Suber showing up??
On 21/06/2013 9:38 AM, omd wrote:
On Friday, June 21, 2013, Fool wrote:
Here I just number and repeat the new proposal.
May I request that you always start a new thread for such numberings so
that it's harder for proposals to get lost in the confusion?
Thanks.
I will. Sorry
Voting on these two are closed.
308 fails 3:2 (Chuck, omd, and scshunt FOR; Walker and Michael AGAINST.
It was a transmutation.)
309 passes 3:1 (Chuck, omd, and Michael FOR; scshunt AGAINST.)
This amends rule 206:
> I propose that Rule 206 be amended to read:
>
> "Initially, each Voter has ex
Here I just number and repeat four proposals that were made. Voting on
these closes in 24 hours.
-Dan
311 (omd):
> - that 112 be made mutable (again - note that this requires unanimous
consent);
312 (omd):
> - that it [112] be amended by replacing "GMT" with "UTC" (for
clarity) and
> by
scshunt invokes judgement on two statements:
> I invoke judgement on whether Rule 304 had the power to repeal itself
> without that rule change being voted on. I think that all rule changes
> must be voted on and cannot occur automatically.
and
> I invoke judgement on whether or not Goethe's tr
Voting on 310 closes in about an hour. Report at that time.
Voting on 311-314 closes in about 14 hours.
Here I just number and repeat the nine new proposals that were made.
Voting on these closes in 24 hours.
315 (Walker):
- Make Rule 106 mutable
316 (Walker):
- Make Rule 107 mutable
317
Good day Agorans,
Since last report, proposal 308 failed and 309 was adopted. Voting on
310 just closed, and it was adopted. 309 amends rule 206 to allow vote
buying, and 310 transmutes 114 to mutable. The current ruleset is
included at the end of this message.
Proposal 308 (Chuck) failed
I invoke judgement on whether or not Goethe's transfers succeeded.
Judgement: FALSE (did not succeed)
On 21/06/2013 11:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
My arguments:
For the first group of transfers:
"Transfer" is not the same as "give". It implies conveyance, but
there are three parties involved:
On 22/06/2013 9:45 AM, Elliott Hird wrote:
I propose that all rules be transmuted to mutable.
One transmutation per proposal at the moment.
-Dan
Here I number and repeat two new proposals:
324 (Chuck):
I propose that rule 110 be transmuted to mutable.
325 (Chuck):
I propose the following rule be created:
If at any time four or more Voters have identical non-zero scores,
the Speaker wins the game.
Voting closes in 24 hours.
-Dan
On 22/06/2013 9:09 AM, Chuck Carroll wrote:
I invoke Judgement on the following statement:
The “proposals” numbered 312, 313, 318, 319, and 320 are not proposed
rule changes, and will have no effect if adopted, regardless of the
adoption of other currently existing proposals.
Reasoning: they pr
I call for judgement on the validity of proposal 322. See rule 105. 322
contains a conditional:
322 (Walker):
- If the Rule initially numbered 106 is mutable, amend Rule 210 to
read ...
This isn't like "the rule formerly numbered 211" which isn't a condition
but a way to refer to a rule.
B
On 22/06/2013 10:01 AM, Chuck Carroll wrote:
I propose the following rule be created:
If at any time four or more Voters have identical non-zero scores, the
Speaker wins the game.
Chuck
This has an interesting interaction with 306... you (among others) could
make me win by announcement.
(
Good day Agorans,
Voting has closed on proposals 311-323. The validity of six of these
were challenged. Chuck raised a CFJ on 312,313,318,319,320 which I am to
rule on, and I raised a CFJ on 322 which FSX is to rule on.
I rule now: I concur with Chuck and scshunt, amendment of an immutable
scshunt raised 2 CFJs which I was to rule on. I ruled on one with my 6th
report, and procrastinated on this one:
> I invoke judgement on whether Rule 304 had the power to repeal itself
> without that rule change being voted on. I think that all rule changes
> must be voted on and cannot occur au
Voting for 324 and 325 closed around 14:30 UTC.
324 (Chuck) passed 4:0 (Walker,Chuck,scshunt,Roujo). It transmutes 110.
Chuck +10 points by 302.
325 (Chuck) fails 2:2 (Chuck,Roujo vs scshunt,Walker).
Full report around 11:00 UTC as usual.
-Dan
Here I just number and repeat four new proposals that were made. Voting
on these closes in 24 hours.
-Dan
326 (Chuck):
I propose that rule 311 be amended by deleting the text “There is no
other way to win.”
327 (Walker):
I propose to amend Rule 310 by replacing "inpermissible" with
"impermi
I raised a CFJ which FSX was to rule on:
I call for judgement on the validity of proposal 322. See rule 105. 322
contains a conditional:
322 (Walker):
- If the Rule initially numbered 106 is mutable, amend Rule 210 to
read ...
This isn't like "the rule formerly numbered 211" which isn't a con
Just re-sending with the "Agora XX" prefix. Sorry about that.
--
Here I just number and repeat four new proposals that were made. Voting
on these closes in 24 hours.
-Dan
326 (Chuck):
I propose that rule 311 be amended by deleting the text “There is no
other way to win.”
327 (Wa
###
Quantity: 1
Title: !!!
Text: !!!
Destruction by author condition: I [omd] CANNOT destroy this promise.
Cashing condition: This promise has existed for at least two months.
Author: omd
Owner: Tree
##
Here I just number and repeat the one new proposal. Report shortly.
-Dan
330 (Walker):
I propose to amend Rule 324 by deleting the first sentence.
Good day Agorans,
Since last report, voting closed on proposals 324 and 325.
Proposal 324 (Chuck) passed 4:0 with Walker, Chuck, scshunt, and Roujo
voting FOR. This transmutes 110. Chuck gets 10 points by rule 302.
Proposal 325 (Chuck) fails 2:2 with Chuck and Roujo FOR; scshunt and
Walker
Voting on 326-329 has closed and voting on 330 closes in half an hour.
Full report at that time. Here I just number and repeat 11 new proposals.
-Dan
331 (omd):
> I propose that Rule 214 be amended to read:
>
> The Speaker shall choose Judges randomly from the set of qualified
> players. Th
Yeah, same idea. It's not valid to propose to amend something that isn't
a mutable rule. (Even if it might become mutable by enactment or
transmutation by the time the proposal is adopted).
-Dan
On 25/06/2013 7:36 AM, Chuck Carroll wrote:
By the same logic by which one cannot propose to amend
Hi FSX,
Well, since you're voting for, would it be fair to ask for your name?
-Dan
On 25/06/2013 1:24 AM, Flameshadowxeroshin wrote:
I vote for this proposal.
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Steven Gardner
wrote:
I vote for this Proposal.
On 25 June 2013 00:10, Steven Gardner wrote:
Good day Agorans,
Since last report, voting closed on proposals 326-330 closed.
Proposal 326 (Chuck) passed 5:0 with Walker, Michael, Chuck, omd, and
Steve voting FOR. This amends 311, formerly 112, removing "there is no
other way to win". Chuck gets 10 points by rule 302.
Proposal 327 (Wa
On 25/06/2013 8:15 AM, Steven Gardner wrote:
Either 'Flameshadowxeroshin' or 'FSX' will serve as a name, IMO.
Ah. Well in that case...
Speaker:
Fool (Daniel Méhkeri )
Voters in order of registration:
June 18:
1. omd ()
2. FSX ()
3. Walker (Charles Walker )
4.
On 24/06/2013 4:36 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 1:44 PM, omd wrote:
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
Amend Rule 2409 (Star Chamber) inserting "- publish the list of codes
(but not the corresponding options)" as the second item in the
bulleted list.
[Allows the
Here I'll just number and repeat the two new proposals. Voting closes
in 24 hours. Voting on 331-341 closes in about 11 hours.
-Dan
342 (Chuck):
I propose that rule 311 be amended by changing the text which reads “the
Voter with the most points shall win. In case of a tie, all such Voters
shall
sort of Bayesian reasoning. But let me put my Bayesian hat on
anyway. For this to work I would have to put 100% credence in omd's
statement and then think that there was nothing to epistemically
distinguish the two branches. This is far from the case.
--Dan the non-Bayesian Fool.
On 25/06/2013 8:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
The fact that it was known to exist, but secretive, generated a surprising
amount of paranoia in some non-member Agorans. There were a couple genuine
witch hunts looking for members, for a short time Agora was genuinely like
a game of werewolf.
You mea
Here I'll just number and repeat the three new proposals that were made.
You can vote by replying to this message, privately if you like.
I'll send out a full report shortly.
-Dan
344 (Yally):
Amend Rule 326 to read:
Each year on June 30th at 00:04:30 UTC +1200 , the game shall end,
and the V
[Missed one...]
Here I'll just number and repeat the four new proposals that were made.
You can vote by replying to this message, privately if you like.
I'll send out a full report shortly.
-Dan
344 (Yally):
Amend Rule 326 to read:
Each year on June 30th at 00:04:30 UTC +1200 , the game shal
Good day Agorans,
Since last report, voting on proposals 331-341 closed.
Proposal 331 (omd) passed 5:1 (Walker, Chuck, omd, Yally, and ehird FOR;
Steve AGAINST). This amends rule 214 so that Judges are selected
randomly from among the Speaker and active players. omd receives 10
points and S
As required by the new rule 340.
-Dan
Speaker:
Fool (Daniel Méhkeri )
Voters in order of registration:
June 18:
1. omd ()
2. FSX ()
3. Walker (Charles Walker )
4. Chuck (Chuck Carroll )
5. ehird (Elliott Hird )
June 20:
6. Yally (Aaron Goldfein )
June 21:
7. Michael (Michael
On 26/06/2013 8:20 AM, omd wrote:
Although there are no appeals, I do strenuously object to this
judgement. The default assumption is the default because it is usually
accurate. Unless you believe that my brother and I are not in control of
the theagoranundead Gmail account, something which I c
On 26/06/2013 12:07 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I was blocking on the term "logician", that's a better choice. (Just had a
flashback to the day in grad school when I became a committed Bayesian,
maybe I was channeling).
Yeah man, you can get flashbacks from that sort of thing. Or so I've
heard, I
On 26/06/2013 10:09 AM, games...@chuckcarroll.org wrote:
I invoke judgement on the following statement: The selection of a Judge
for this statement is a move whose legality cannot be determined with
finality.
By rule 331, I must randomly select from myself or those who voted on
the last propos
Why not! I call for judgement on:
"Roujo has cast valid votes on proposals by means of the message
quoted below."
On 26/06/2013 10:12 AM, Jonathan Rouillard wrote:
I also vote FOR all current proposals, except those who currently have
a majority of AGAINST votes - I vote AGAINST on those.
On 26/06/2013 3:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
CFJ: a player who forfeits the game can still vote and/or transfer points.
By 331, I must randomly select either myself or a voter on 341 (Goethe
was not one of them). My virtual 9-sided die comes up
omd
You have 24 hours.
-Dan
("Forfeit
On 26/06/2013 12:09 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I vote for 345-347 (think I already voted on 345)
344 I'll defer to speaker's opinion on ongoing-ness in future.
-Goethe
:VETO:
On 26/06/2013 3:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
CFJ: a player who forfeits the game can still vote and/or transfer points.
("Forfeiture" isn't strictly defined. Does it mean completely drop out,
points zeroed, cease to be defined as a player? Or just give up on a
chance to win but remain a player,
On 26/06/2013 4:30 PM, omd wrote:
On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, wrote:
As for any ordering of actions occuring in the same message, that's
tradition (possibly law?) in Agora itself, but I don't know whether
Agoran
tradition carries over to Agora XX.
By the way, I'm not saying
On 26/06/2013 6:42 PM, Flameshadowxeroshin wrote:
For.
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Jonathan Rouillard
wrote:
FOR. =)
~ Roujo
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:36 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
I propose the following rule:
At 12:00 July 1 2013 UTC+1200, Agora XX ends and the player with the most
poin
On 26/06/2013 9:16 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
Shouldn't I have some points, at the very least from voting against a
passing proposal here?
The thing is, that rule (302) was amended (332), and then rule 305
prevents it from assigning points based on votes.
Still, it depends on what "at the sam
--
From: agora-discussion [mailto:agora-discussion-boun...@agoranomic.org] On
Behalf Of Fool
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 9:10 PM
To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
Subject: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ assigned to Walker
On 26/06/2013 10:09 AM, games...@chuckcarroll.org wrote:
I invoke judgement on the
Okay, so there's a proposal pending (345) which, if it passes, means
that if a proposal fails, the proposer forfeits.
And suddenly there are no proposals for me to distribute!
Hey, if you're not in the lead, and the rules don't change, you're going
to lose the game anyway. (And maybe Chuck has
Good day Agorans,
A correction from last report brought to my attention by Yally. It
does involve the disputed interpretation of the order of events when the
voting on multiple proposals closes "simultaneously". I am going with
the interpretation that they pass sequentially in order I number
Argh **
Yes, Chuck did privately vote against 344. And no, Walker did vote
against, he changed his public for to a private against about 9 hours
later.
So it's actually 4:4, fail, we're back to rule 343. Yally did not get 10
points for proposing 344. Walker, Goethe, and omd did not
Goethe:
>
> CFJ: Blob has forfeited.
>
331 makes me assign it randomly to me or one of the people who voted on
the last proposal, excluding the caller.
The last proposal was 347, on which 9 players voted. Goethe was one of
them. So was Blob. (hmm)
I'll go ahead and roll a virtual 8-sided d
On 27/06/2013 5:24 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
On 27 June 2013 23:23, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
On 26 June 2013 05:33, Malcolm Ryan wrote:
Let's make this interesting.
I propose that a rule be enacted reading:
"If a player proposes a rule change which is not adopted at the end of its
voting pe
On 27/06/2013 2:22 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
The emphasis is: A JUDGEMENT HAS NO FORCE TO ACTUALLY COMPEL A RESULT.
Unless it comes up UNDECIDABLE. Then you win!
On 27/06/2013 8:19 PM, Malcolm Ryan wrote:
I call for judgment on the following statement:
"At the 12:16am GMT on June 28 2013, Blob had not forfeited."
Reasoning: The rules make it clear that forfeiting is a voluntary player action. Rule 345 says a
player "must" forfeit. It does not say that
On 27/06/2013 8:15 PM, Malcolm Ryan wrote:
I call for judgement on the following statement.
"Blob does not have to forfeit under rule 345."
Reasoning:
Rule 345 says "If a player proposes a rule change that is not adopted..."
I made proposal 346 BEFORE this rule came into effect. Rule 108 forb
On 27/06/2013 8:43 PM, Steven Gardner wrote:
On 28 June 2013 10:36, Fool mailto:fool1...@gmail.com>> wrote:
In this case, the effect was your forfeiture (or requirement to
forfeit). It was based on events that occurred prior, but the effect
was not retroactive.
I disagree
On 27/06/2013 8:37 PM, Steven Gardner wrote:
The argument (setting aside the retroactivity claim) is that Blob was
immediately required to forfeit. Not doing so would to be sure be
violation of the Rules, but it still can't happen unless Blob sends a
message say that e forfeits.
Okay, for the s
On 27/06/2013 8:55 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Of course, this raises the age old question of whether, if e does an
"illegal" thing, whether it actually fails (since we haven't differentiated
IMPOSSIBLE from ILLEGAL here at all...)
Okay, for the sake of argument: then that also applies to all play
omd's Agora Infinity is the only proposal so far for the next round.
And unless that proposal passes, next round is the last one. Even if it
does pass, next round is the last round at this ridiculous speed. The
rounds after that go to ludicruous speed...
("What's the matter Colonel Sanders? Ch
On 27/06/2013 9:45 AM, omd wrote:
The cycle length is initially 24 hours. On 30 June 2013, 00:00:00
+1200, and thereafter once the cycle length has passed since the last
reduction, the cycle length is reduced to half of its previous value.
On 31 June 2013, 00:00:00 +1200, the game ends.
Maybe
On 27/06/2013 9:27 PM, Malcolm Ryan wrote:
Aand we return to the old Platonic vs Pragmatic debate.
Blob (staying low)
Yeah, Platonic, you lose. Pragmatic, I read you some of my poetry first.
RESISTANCE IS USELESS.
-Dan
On 27/06/2013 9:38 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
I call for judgement on the statement "a player can change eir
vote."
My 8-sided virtual die comes up omd
You have 24 hours.
-Dan
Nothing in the rules support the notion that this is possible, or
allow for removing of votes. Instead, the rule
On 27/06/2013 9:38 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
I call for judgement on the statement "a player can change eir vote."
Nothing in the rules support the notion that this is possible, or
allow for removing of votes. Instead, the rules claim each player gets
a single vote. Walker's initial vote should
Here are the two proposals for what could be this final distribution.
You can still submit proposals, and if 363 passes and 364 fails, I'll
make another distribution before we go to ludicrous speed.
Voting on 348-362 is still open for another hour and a half. Full report
then.
-Dan
363 (omd)
On 28/06/2013 10:55 AM, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
Gratuitous argument: A-D is Not A Public Forum, and is not subject to
the strictness of a PF. As long as someone makes it clear *each time*
that their potentially confusing nickname is not going to confuse Agora
play, it's okay.
(cough cough)
On 28/06/2013 9:42 AM, Steven Gardner wrote:
The point of a ban on retroactive application of a rule, especially one
which, like R345, criminalises a certain action, is to avoid a
particularly galling kind of injustice: namely, that people do things
which they rightly believe at the time are leg
On 28/06/2013 9:58 AM, Alexander Smith wrote:
It looks like I was too early with my last attempts to vote, so I again attempt
to vote:
363 FOR
364 FOR
It was not too early, voting started when I distributed, not when I
posted the report. And, you voted against before.
H. Speaker Fool, I
On 28/06/2013 1:07 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
I call for judgement on the following: what is above described as
proposal 364 is actually a proposal.
Argument: I find the notion of this proposal to be extremely
humiliating. It unfairly awards the game to old-timers, despite the
hard work of the mo
not in effect when Blob proposed P346.
--
Steve Gardner
via mobile
Precedent was used for rule 304. Previous CFJ:
Original Message
Subject: Re: BUS: Agora XX: 1st report: Vigintennial Blitz game begins
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 06:53:55 -0400
From: Fool
To: agora-discussion
1 - 100 of 248 matches
Mail list logo
