Re: DIS: MUD engines?

On 8/8/06, Cctoide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I've been considering setting up a small MUD/MOO server for a group of friends. However, I'm a little uninitiated and a quick google reveals a few servers, among them LambdaMOO. There's a Win32 version, WinMOO, but its last update was in 2000. My Linu

Re: DIS: Vote fight

A player may expend one VC to increase eir own VPOP by one. A player may expend two VCs to increase any other player's VPOP by one. These should be the other way around. It should be cheaper to increase another player's VPOP than your own. Otherwise, why increase another player's VPOP? -root

DIS: Proposal distribution stalled

H. Distributor, This week's proposal distribution exceeds the size limit and awaits your approval. -root

DIS: Re: BUS: Election updates

Promotor: Voting opens; candidates are Murphy, Eris, and OscarMeyr. I vote for OscarMeyr. Eek, I'm not a candidate! That's what I get for not paying enough attention to the elections. -root

DIS: Re: BUS: King me

As permitted by the new ruleset on the first of the month, I make myself Emperor. Yeah, and I'm the Duke of Arrakis. -root

Re: DIS: Vote fight

On 8/31/06, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm willing to consider a hard reset of voting power upon a win. What does everybody else think? I agree. Periodic resets are necessary to prevent players from getting too entrenched. It also occurs to me that VPOP and VPDP haven't been

Re: DIS: Vote fight

On 9/7/06, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Just to check rule powers... R1950 is Power 3, and says in part: The voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary proposal is one, if not explicitly modified by other rules. Does this permit a Power 2 rule to modify voting

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: High-Power Deference

On 9/9/06, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Proposal: High-Power Deference (AI = 3, please) Amend Rule 1482 (Precedence between Rules with Unequal Power) by appending this text: If the Rule with the higher Power explicitly says of itself that it defers to another Rule (or typ

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [bored in a meeting with wireless] might as well Assess

On 9/21/06, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Not exactly (I should have noted your attempt). Votes are only > counted for people who are players when the voting period for > a proposal *starts*. Actually, this may not be true! Can someone read R

Re: DIS: Is it possible to distribute an AI=3 proposal?

Irrelevant, since R1770 and R1952 were repealed. Distribution is now authorized by R1607, which doesn't require the proposal to be "distributable". -root On 9/29/06, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sep 29, 2006, at 6:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: OscarMeyr wrote: After the recen

Re: DIS: Is it possible to distribute an AI=3 proposal?

Sorry, I didn't read closely enough and though this was a depth-flippting issue rather than a chamber-flipping issue. But chamber was also repealed, so it still shouldn't matter. -root On 9/29/06, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Irrelevant, since R1770 and R19

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 4871-4872

On 10/3/06, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 4872 | Voting Credits | OscarMeyr | 3 | 09Sep06 | D AGAINST - voting power doesn't get reset, the Promotor is allowed to be nitpicky. The proposal would reset voting power after every win. -root

DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

4871: FOR (is it broken? Should I be against this clarification/ improvement for some reason?) I just don't see the need. If rule X defers to rules of a lower power, then rule X shouldn't be so high-powered in the first place. Or at least it should be broken up into a high-powered part and a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] State of the Bench Report

On 10/5/06, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 03:08:18PM -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Now that rule *was* repealed. No shirking! I would go on hold, but with switches and activity apparently both gone, I don't think I can. I can pretty much guarantee that any CFJ

DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Switches reborn

The rules may associate a switch to an entity. Each switch has a collection of distinct states, including a distinguished default state and a distinguished current state. A switch that would not otherwise have a defined default state shall have the default state nul

Re: DIS: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1589 assigned to GreyKnight

On 10/8/06, Grey Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Rule 698/14 (Power=1) says "A player who is inactive or unready is ineligible to judge CFJs", so this would additionally mean that CFJ 1590 is FALSE. (That rule quote is taken from the September SLR, but I can't see anywhere where that rule has

Re: DIS: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1589 assigned to GreyKnight

On 10/8/06, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 02:42:22AM -0700, Grey Knight wrote: > Rule 698/14 (Power=1) says "A player who is inactive or unready is > ineligible to judge CFJs", so this would additionally mean that CFJ > 1590 is FALSE. I *think* you may need to

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Rulekeepor's Memo

Panick in the streets!  Crime has no punishment!  Riots, riots,anarchy!! I hereby gamble and commit wanton adultery.-root

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Rulekeepor's Memo

On 11/9/06, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 11/9/06, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> I hereby gamble and commit wanton adultery. Well, can you prove I didn't?  :-)-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Hold

On 12/14/06, Grey Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Manu wrote: > > > On 12/12/06, Michael Slone wrote: > >> > >> Unfortunately, going on hold is no longer defined. > > > > Which means that I am now a fully registered player again without > > having to

Re: DIS: Amicus curiae

On 12/18/06, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I would have to say that its not dead in the 'nothing is happening' sense, but it might be dead in the 'not living and breathing sense', I could go and make a large argument that dealt with the 30+ deffinitions of death i found on dictionary.com, yet

Re: DIS: Amicus curiae

On 12/18/06, Jonathan Fry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At the time of the CFJ you hadn't judged it yet, so I'm afraid that > argument just doesn't fly. That's true when e decides to emself that Agora is dead, but it's arguable that the act of _submitting_ a decision that Agora is dead is parado

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 1594

So does this mean that 1594 now needs to be reassigned, since the assigned judge was ineligible due to not being a player? On 12/20/06, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I judge CFJ 1594 to be FALSE. A Player can indeed be deregistered by the publication of a Writ of FAGE as described in

Re: DIS: Officer shuffle?

On 12/21/06, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: H. Promotor OscarMeyr, are you still out there? There are a number of proposals waiting to be distributed. Partially my fault. There was a DNS hiccup a few days ago that prevented em from reaching the database. -root

DIS: Re: BUS: registration and CFJs

Nice one! Although I'm not sure there's really any utility in calling a CFJ that can't be assigned, other than to annoy the CotC. By the way, no need to bar me: I deregistered in December. -root On 1/10/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I see the ruleset has slimmed down a bit since I wa

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity

> It retains the properties it had when it was last defined, no? How could you justify that? If something loses its definition then its properties are unknown. In programming if you have a pointer pointing to an object, and you delete that object, the pointer now points to who knows what. In o

DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix unanimity

On 1/11/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: H. Promotor, I hereby submit the following proposal, entitled "fix unanimity": --- Be it therefore resolved that Rule 955 "Determining the Will of Agora" be amended by replacing the word "Unanimity" with "aleph-0". --- ("Aleph-0" is the precise math

DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix unanimity

What do we need to introduce cardinality concepts for? For voting purposes, unanimity is much more intuitive. Come to think of it, it's also more correct. A voting index of aleph-null should properly only be used when infinitely many FOR votes are placed, which I don't believe has ever happene

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix unanimity

On 1/11/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ian Kelly wrote: >Come to think of it, it's also more correct. A voting index of >aleph-null should properly only be used when infinitely many FOR votes >are placed, Not at all. The voting index is not inherently a cardinal.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix unanimity

On 1/11/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ian Kelly wrote: > By your argument, aleph-null should >never be used for voting index, since aleph-null is not a hyperreal >(as far as I am aware -- my understanding is that an infinite >hyperreal

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Egregrious AI Modification Abuse

On 1/29/07, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Jan 12, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Grey Knight wrote: Upon adoption of this proposal, Rule 2127 (Conditional Votes) is repealed. I hereby modify the Adoption Index of this proposal to "2 yellow smarties". I consider the attempt to

DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

On 1/30/07, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On each proposal in the group of proposals from proposal 4893 to proposal 4902 (excluding proposal 4896) I place a vote of FOR, unless without my FOR vote any one of those proposals would not pass, in which case i place a vote of PRESENCE. Also if

DIS: Re: OFF: Corrections and dismissals

On 1/31/07, Grey Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Due to a technical error, my first Notice of Rotation was ineffective. The assignments of CFJs 1607, 1608, and 1609, as well as the second Notice of Rotation following them should also be considered in error. This is exactly the kind of situati

DIS: proposal pool down

Hey everyone, Periware.org, which hosts the promotor's database and website, is going to be down for much of this weekend. Sorry for any inconvenience. -root

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Changing officers

I would be happy to add this kind of automation to the existing proposal archive website, in whatever form is ultimately agreed upon. -root On 4/3/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Quazie wrote: >Unless the automated sites e-mailed a properly formated proposal to the >forum. Thus keeping b

Re: DIS: web pages

*sigh* Nobody ever remembers to link the proposal archive. -root On 4/5/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Since no one else has stepped forward, I've put together a web page to describe Agora to outsiders. It's currently at . Taral, please

Re: DIS: web pages

On 4/5/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ian Kelly wrote: >*sigh* Nobody ever remembers to link the proposal archive. Sorry, I didn't know about it. I'd like to see it myself. Where is it? http://www.periware.org/agora/pool.php By default, it shows only the curr

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Proposal pool report

On 4/25/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Benjamin Schultz wrote: >Or, of course, you could volunteer to take over as Promotor, eh? I'm up for that. My manifesto: if elected I'll distribute proposals promptly, in semi-weekly batches, to keep the game moving. Proposals will generally wait l

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Who needs partners, anyway?

On 5/22/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ian Kelly wrote: >I hereby make the following agreement under R1742, heavily based on >the Pineapple Partnership. What's your theory by which you can make a R1742 agreement with only one player? -zefram Game precedent. There h

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Who needs partners, anyway?

On 5/22/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 5/21/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I hereby register as a player, with the nickname root. Welcome back, human! Thanks! > I hereby make the following agreement under R1742, heavily based on > the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs on Nemo

On 5/23/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm not sure that it should, but the rules definitely have an opinion on it. I'd be quite happy to generalise personhood much more widely so that the issue wouldn't arise. B Nomic's rule on this is a great model: it explicitly allows any "external f

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs on Nemo

On 5/23/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 5/23/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How interesting. I predict that the force of gravity will be > registering shortly at B Nomic. Can the force of gravity pass a Turing test? In a quantum universe, yes.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs on Nemo

On 5/23/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 5/23/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In a quantum universe, yes. How do you figure? Quantum theory isn't actually required; I was being snarky. I just mean that in any Turing test setup with gravi

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs on Nemo

On 5/24/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What exactly about that provision makes you think I would enjoy Agora being transformed into a glorified database? BEGIN TRANSACTION; UPDATE RULE 106 SET TEXT = 'SQL script' WHERE TEXT = 'document'; COMMIT TRANSACTION; -root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs on Nemo

On 5/24/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 5/24/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > BEGIN TRANSACTION; > > UPDATE RULE 106 > SET TEXT = 'SQL script' > WHERE TEXT = 'document'; > > COMMIT TRANSACTION; Query OK, 0 rules affected (0.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs on Nemo

On 5/24/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: root wrote: > On 5/24/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 5/24/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > BEGIN TRANSACTION; >> > >> > UPDATE RULE 106 >> > SET TEX

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs on Nemo

On 5/24/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: root wrote: > On 5/24/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> root wrote: >> >> > On 5/24/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On 5/24/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs on Nemo

Why were we doing this again? Er, I forget. Something to do with 0-member partnerships, judging from the subject line. -root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

On 5/24/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 5/24/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I submit the following proposal, titled "More on paragraphs": As long as you're working on 1023 (d), could you clarify (d) (3)? > (3) Units

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs on Nemo

On 5/24/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Anyway... I meant to say that I don't know what rule 106 you're talking about. Er, it's the one titled "Adopting Proposals". -root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Protectorates

On 5/24/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I suppose so. Am I permitted to modify proposals after I submit them? BobTHJ No, but you can retract it and submit a new one. -root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

On 5/24/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (3) The units of a document form an ordered tree with the order determined as follows. Each unit has a level, which is the number of spaces preceding the first non-space character on the first line of the un

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: The Standing Court

On 5/25/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: A player may change emself from sitting to lying down, or vice versa, by announcement. Why can't standing players change themselves to lying down? Seems a bit arbitrary. -root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Inactivity

On 5/25/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 5/25/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > E hasn't posted since March. Anybody know where e's gone to? E's > needed in an administrative capacity at the Dwarf Fortress wiki, and > apparently e&#

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On 5/25/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If a rule states that a Magnate pays a specified type and amount of property, then that property is transferred to the designated receiving Magnate instantly (if possible) upon that requirement taking effect. Ick. My apologies for not having c

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On 5/25/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If a provision were added to pardon errors that appear on the Secretary's weekly report if they go unnoticed for a week following that report, would that be satisfactory? At the most you would be looking at unrolling 2 weeks of history then (one

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements of CFJs 1678-83

On 5/25/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: root wrote: > On 5/25/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Human Point Two judges CFJs 1682 and 1683 FALSE. >> >> Arguments: >> >> The first paragraph of Rule 1742 consistently uses plurals. I interpret >> this as requiring such agreements

Re: DIS: BUS: Re: yin & yang

On 5/29/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: root wrote: > And therein lies the problem with appealing the > judgments: in the event that they're overturned, they never existed, > and the appeal is thus just as invalid as the original judgments. Funny, that's exactly what I claimed when I

Re: DIS: BUS: Re: yin & yang

For example, what happens if Murphy's CFJ (not the PPs) is appealed? If it's sustainted, it's sustained, the opponents will have had a fair hearing. If the majority of justices agree it should be overturned, it can be Reassigned, with strong arguments suggesting overturning, and Appellate Orders

Re: DIS: BUS: Re: yin & yang

On 5/30/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Eris wrote: > (~P -> P) -> P P -> ~~P (~~P -> ~P) -> ~P P -> (~P -> P) But I'm confused. What precisely is P supposed to represent in this context? -root

Re: DIS: BUS: Re: yin & yang

On 5/31/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In classical logic, (~P -> P) -> P is a tautology, since ~P -> P is equivalent to P. ((~P -> P) <-> P) -> ((~P -> P) -> P) -root

Re: DIS: BUS: Re: yin & yang

On 5/31/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Zefram wrote: > Specifically, I think, "the Pineapple Partnership is not a person". Problem is, if (as Eris claims) it's a general rule that (~P -> P) -> P, then we could also say (~Q -> Q) -> Q, where Q = ~P. so Eris's claim doesn't resolve t

Re: DIS: proto: better VLOP balance after wins

On 5/31/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The voting limit on democratic proposals (VLDP) is one for a player who is a natural person, and zero for any other entity. The voting limit on ordinary proposals (VLOP) is variable. The default VLOP is 5 for a player who is

Re: DIS: BUS: Re: yin & yang

On 5/31/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ian Kelly wrote: >how does >"the Pineapple Partnership is not not a person" imply "the Pineapple >Partnership is not a person"? It would if the PP's

Re: DIS: proto: better VLOP balance after wins

Would you object less if we defined the phrase "natural player" to mean "player who is a natural person", and used it? No. I would object less if the rules were organized such that when we eventually get tired of partnerships and repeal them, we won't have to amend all the high-powered rules ju

Re: DIS: BUS: Re: yin & yang

On 5/31/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: root wrote: > My keyboard hereby registers as a player, and none of you can judge > otherwise. Your keyboard is a pineapple. Now we've come full circle. Also, can you prove you have the consent of your keyboard to bind em to an agreement? Or

Re: DIS: phew!

On 5/31/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Just barely lost out to April 2005; April 2005 had a April Fools joke that resulted in posting repeated copies of most of the ruleset in discussion forum, so maybe that's not a measure of discussion volume. On the other hand, current archives s

Re: DIS: phew!

On 5/31/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I've heard Annabel mentioned several times. Is there someplace I could find a synopsis of this crisis? I don't think that anybody has ever written up a thesis on the subject, so your best bet is probably just to go digging through the archives

DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Knuts!

On 6/1/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Proto-Proposal: Knuts! I like it. But I don't think a proposal this short should be creating two offices; couldn't the Gnome and the Shopkeepor be the same office? -root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Mother, May I?

On 6/3/07, quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: > Proto-Proposal: Mother, May I? > (AI = 3, please) > > Create a rule titled "Mother, May I?" with Power 3 and this text: > > The following terms are defined. These definitions MUST be used > when a rule includes a term i

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: power law quorum

On 6/3/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I honestly don't feel that quorum serves much of a purpose other than to slow the pace of the game now and then and make it difficult to pass anything during periods of low activity. What is the benefit? It prevents scams wherein a small minorit

DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Democratic and AI 1

On 6/6/07, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Otherwise I think that the threshold for ordinary/democratic proposals should be raised (e.g., a Proposal with an Adoption Index less than 2 is Ordinary). Hard to explain, but it almost seems to be a contradiction to allow AI=1.1 democratic, but

DIS: Re: BUS: Bob's Quality Cards

On 6/7/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Bob's Quality Cards is a partnership and binding agreement created under the laws of the state of Colorado. The partners of Bob's Quality Cards are myself (BobTHJ / Roger Hicks) and a close personal friend John Chapman. The terms of our partnershi

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bob's Quality Cards

On 6/7/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Parachutenear Grand Junction on the west slope. It's a great state to live in :) Ah. My girlfriend is currently working as an intern for the Palisade Tribune, so I'll be passing through that area next weekend. -root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bob's Quality Cards

On 6/7/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Since you're new here, you probably don't know this yet, but attempting to duplicate a scam that has already been attempted is Not Done. Apparently this doesn't include the "Deregister and Lurk Dourly" scam. =) -root

DIS: Proto-judgments of CFJs 1659 and 1660

== CFJ 1659 == The phrase "by announcement" and similar phrases used by the charter of Primo Corporation, when qualified by the additional phrase "to the Corporate Forum", are not bound by the standard Rule definition of the ph

DIS: On partnerships

I've just noticed a clause I hadn't paid much attention to before. As I understand it, the prevailing argument that an R1742 agreement can be a person stems from transference of the partnership's obligations to the comprising members. But consider the first sentence of the penultimate paragraph

Re: DIS: On partnerships

On 6/8/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ian Kelly wrote: >This seems to indicate that a partnership's obligations are only >enforceable to the extent that the partnership's members desire them >to be enforced. Any thoughts? Erk. I'd say we need to fix tha

Re: DIS: On partnerships

On 6/8/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: All but the first paragraph is about enforcement. And as Goethe recently pointed out, the current reading of the first paragraph is just a truism. As, presumably, was the previous reading, since the current reading is just a generalizat

Re: DIS: On partnerships

On 6/8/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ian Kelly wrote: >recently pointed out, the current reading of the first paragraph is >just a truism. I don't read it as a truism. I prefer a reading that gives it significance. It seems to me that it is defining a class of A

Re: DIS: On partnerships

On 6/8/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ian Kelly wrote: >Should I then be expecting a refutation of my proto-judgment of CFJ 1660? I'm not entirely happy with your reasoning on those CFJs, but actually I was pondering refuting your proto-judgement of CFJ 1659. I think proh

Re: DIS: On partnerships

On 6/8/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: root wrote: > > All but the first paragraph is about enforcement. And as Goethe > > recently pointed out, the current reading of the first paragraph is > > just a truism. > > As, presumably, was the previous reading, since the current reading i

Re: DIS: Proto-judgments of CFJs 1659 and 1660

On 6/9/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ian Kelly wrote: >Thus, it is clear to me that the phrase "by announcement" must be >interpreted according to its Rule 478 definition, regardless of any >qualification or decoration. I think this is in error. Even if i

Re: DIS: On partnerships

On 6/8/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: An example of the two tiers: Zefram and root form a partnership, it registers as a player, and the partnership fails to perform some required action. Anyone may bring suit against the partnership, and the partnership as a whole is dinged. But o

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Knuts!

On 6/13/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: > The Gnome is responsible for keeping track of Wheezes. The > Gnome's report includes Wheeze holdings. Frequency of report? R2143: Any information designated to be part of the officer's report

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On 6/14/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/13/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Roger Hicks wrote: > >R2109 Agoran Contracts is repealed. > > Not planning to keep our one Agoran Contract on as a rule? I have yet to see this elusive Agoran Contract...part of the reason why I'

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On 6/14/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If that's all you're concerned about, why not support Zefram's > proposal to require regular publication instead? > > -root Because I don't see the benefit of having more than one agreement that all players of Agora must be bound by. The r

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On 6/14/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ian Kelly wrote: > the list of cards, which had grown >long enough that it was just taking up too much space in the ruleset. Because, of course, it is physically impossible for an email message to be lon

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On 6/14/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: As the current Contracts rule requires proposals to amend contracts, it doesn't offer that benefit. Also, the current Contracts rule doesn't allow much in resolving conflicts between Contracts and Rules. I think a compromise is hard-coding each

Re: DIS: proto: refactor the Herald

On 6/18/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: proto-proposal: refactor the Herald AI: 1 {{{ Amend rule 649 by adding after "set out in the Rules." the sentence The Herald's report shall include a list of each Patent Title that at least one person Bears, with a list of which persons

Re: DIS: proto: Agoran arms in a rule

On 6/18/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [The blazon was given by proposal 4898, but not put in a rule, so that proposal is probably ineffective in creating a lasting definition. Game custom is that such changes are effective. They were even outlawed at one point by Proposal 4513. -root

Re: DIS: proto: refactor the Herald

On 6/18/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ian Kelly wrote: >IMO, official duties such as report contents should mostly be kept in >the rule that defines the office. This way a (potential) officer can >read one rule to find the duties required of em rather than having to >

Re: DIS: proto: Agoran arms in a rule

In any case, it's bad form and should be in the rules (I think invisibilitating was a joke on someone who tried to do this for something more substantial). That's what I thought as well, but unfortunately I can't seem to find the earlier proposal. -root

Re: DIS: proto: Agoran arms in a rule

On 6/18/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Consequently, I don't think a proposal can directly govern the game beyond making instantaneous changes. What do you think about effects such as this one, from proposal 4453? Upon adoption of this Proposal, the Scorekeepor shall as soon as po

Re: DIS: proto: Agoran arms in a rule

On 6/18/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In any case, it's bad form and should be in the rules (I think > invisibilitating was a joke on someone who tried to do this for > something more substantial). That's what I thought as well, but unfortunately I can&#

Re: DIS: proto: Agoran arms in a rule

On 6/18/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/18/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In any case, it's bad form and should be in the rules (I think > > invisibilitating was a joke on someone who tried to do this for > > something more substan

Re: DIS: proto: B Agreement

On 6/18/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: proto-proposal: B Agreement AI: 2 {{{ Amend rule 2147 by adding at the end Protectorates are permitted to register. Any player may, with three supporters, cause a Protectorate to be deregistered or, with one supporter, cause a Protectorate

Re: DIS: proto: B Agreement

On 6/18/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Good points, although I was hoping to skirt the hazy definition of a nomic and a player of a nomic. R2147 already relies on both, so you don't gain anything by doing so. -root

Re: DIS: proto: refactor the Herald

On 6/18/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ian Kelly wrote: >IMO, official duties such as report contents should mostly be kept in >the rule that defines the office. This way a (potential) officer can >read one rule to find the duties required of em rather than having to >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Open letter

On 6/18/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You didn't give a title for the proposal. Oh, bother. For lack of a better title, let's call it "Recantus Cygneus". -root

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >