headers
Alex Smith | 1 Jan 2009 01:09
Picon
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 23:34 -0500, comex wrote:
> In protest of this, I submit the following token Proposal (AI=1.7),
> titled "Moment of Silence":
> {
> Award each of {j, Murphy, ais523, 0x44, Billy Pilgrim} one Rest.
> }
The scam in B is roughly equivalent to an Agoran scam which somehow set
everyone else's voting limit to 0 for a proposal which was somehow
undemocratisable. That would normally be considered to be a legitimate
sort of scam; for some reason, though, ehird in particular was strongly
against it.

Incidentally, I was against having a secret ruleset with any strong
ability to affect the gamestate. A secret-rules game which just gave
rewards for figuring them out and punishments for not figuring them out
might be fun; but a semi-permanent dictatorship would not be.

--

-- 
ais523
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Ed Murphy | 1 Jan 2009 01:17
Picon

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

ais523 wrote:

> On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 23:34 -0500, comex wrote:
>> In protest of this, I submit the following token Proposal (AI=1.7),
>> titled "Moment of Silence":
>> {
>> Award each of {j, Murphy, ais523, 0x44, Billy Pilgrim} one Rest.
>> }
> The scam in B is roughly equivalent to an Agoran scam which somehow set
> everyone else's voting limit to 0 for a proposal which was somehow
> undemocratisable. That would normally be considered to be a legitimate
> sort of scam; for some reason, though, ehird in particular was strongly
> against it.

More directly, it was (the scamsters finally perceived enough ambiguity
and/or ill will to give up) roughly equivalent to forcing a proposal to
be processed through a forum whose location was not generally known (but
would be accessible to players if only they knew the location), and/or
that inconsistently bounced messages, and still arguing that said forum
was "reasonably accessible".  I contented myself with arguing against
this position, but a number of others either left (ehird and Wooble, at
least) or threatened to do so.
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Alex Smith | 1 Jan 2009 01:24
Picon
Picon

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 16:17 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 23:34 -0500, comex wrote:
> >> In protest of this, I submit the following token Proposal (AI=1.7),
> >> titled "Moment of Silence":
> >> {
> >> Award each of {j, Murphy, ais523, 0x44, Billy Pilgrim} one Rest.
> >> }
> > The scam in B is roughly equivalent to an Agoran scam which somehow set
> > everyone else's voting limit to 0 for a proposal which was somehow
> > undemocratisable. That would normally be considered to be a legitimate
> > sort of scam; for some reason, though, ehird in particular was strongly
> > against it.
> 
> More directly, it was (the scamsters finally perceived enough ambiguity
> and/or ill will to give up) roughly equivalent to forcing a proposal to
> be processed through a forum whose location was not generally known (but
> would be accessible to players if only they knew the location), and/or
> that inconsistently bounced messages, and still arguing that said forum
> was "reasonably accessible".  I contented myself with arguing against
> this position, but a number of others either left (ehird and Wooble, at
> least) or threatened to do so.

That's not what we were arguing. The whole reasonably accessible thing
turned out to be irrelevant, as it merely determined which forum was the
relevant one. The argument was that the second forum's reasonable
accessibility was only relevant earlier (and it was accessible then);
the fact that it ceased to be accessible some time later is as far as we
could tell irrelevant. (And even if it was relevant, the rules didn't
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Kerim Aydin | 2 Jan 2009 06:17

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal holidays


On Thu, 1 Jan 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I don't know about you, but I have way more free time the last week of
> the year than at any other time of the year.  I can only assume the
> Holidays rule was enacted at a time when internet access for many
> players was severely limited when they had to go home from their
> dorms.  Thus, I submit the following AI-3 proposal entitled "Bah
> Humbug!":

Ah, memories.

In Nomic World ca. 1992/3, a very small number of us (but still a quorum) 
had MUD access over the holidays--I remember hanging around a nearly 
deserted computer lab working on a senior project-- and managed to pass 
the first viral rule-mutations that caused trouble, and also created 
the first sub-nomics/contract rules called Committees, from which sprang 
the FRC among other things.  In the first edition of the committee
rules, we fully intended them to be mousetrapped, but that got CFJ'd 
down based only on a wording error...way back then...really changed how 
those things were viewed subsequently...I wonder sometimes if some 
Agora/nomic concepts wouldn't be very different except for that error.    

Hence the first holiday rules.

My suggestion is replace it with something very simple, like "players 
CANNOT be cited/punished for failure to publish reports/distribute 
proposals/assign judges/judgements if the deadline falls in the 
holiday and SHOULD NOT perform actions that create further time 
requirements (distribute/assign judges) but if they do so, the effects 
are unchanged."
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Sgeo | 3 Jan 2009 04:00
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: A really unlikely scam

On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Warrigal <ihope127+w <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree to the following:
>
> {This is a public contract and a pledge. Warrigal CAN terminate this
> contract by announcement.
>
> The Badge of Markos Sophisticus Maximus is a singleton asset whose
> recordkeepor is Markos Sophisticus Maximus. Ownership of the Badge of
> Markos Sophisticus Maximus is restricted to players. Initially, the
> Badge of Markos Sophisticus Maximus is owned by Warrigal. Markos
> Sophisticus Maximus is an imposed office held by the owner of the
> Badge of Markos Sophisticus Maximus.}
>

I'm pretty sure only rules can define offices.
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Warrigal | 3 Jan 2009 04:48
Picon

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A really unlikely scam

On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Sgeo <sgeoster <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm pretty sure only rules can define offices.

Yes, but only rules can define dependent actions.

--Warrigal
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ed Murphy | 3 Jan 2009 13:15
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: A really unlikely scam

Warrigal wrote:

> One more time. I terminate the below contract and then agree to it again.
> 
> {This is a public contract and a pledge. Warrigal CAN terminate this
> contract by announcement.
> 
> The Badge of Markos Sophisticus Maximus is a singleton asset whose
> recordkeepor is Markos Sophisticus Maximus. Ownership of the Badge of
> Markos Sophisticus Maximus is restricted to parties to this contract.
> Initially, the Badge of Markos Sophisticus Maximus is owned by
> Warrigal. Markos Sophisticus Maximus is an imposed office held by the
> owner of the Badge of Markos Sophisticus Maximus.}

I really don't know what you expect this to accomplish.  Rule 1006:

      An office is a role defined as such by the rules.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ed Murphy | 3 Jan 2009 18:01
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: Posture

ais523 wrote:

> I become sitting.

This is a no-op.

> If today is exactly 86400 seconds long, I become leaning.

It wasn't, so you didn't.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Pavitra | 5 Jan 2009 01:46
Picon
Gravatar

DIS: Re: BUS: Promotion to DELTA

On Sunday 04 January 2009 18:03:44 Dice server wrote:
> #  5 = (aka ehird)
Very minor nitpick: normally a space would come between the nickname 
and the following left-parenthesis, and the rest of the list includes 
a space between the nickname and the preceding equals sign.

For example, my entry might have read:
#  7 = pavitra (aka watcher)
but not:
#  7 = pavitra(aka watcher)
nor:
#  7 =pavitra (aka watcher)

Therefore, 's entry should properly have read:
#  5 =  (aka ehird)

Pavitra
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jay Campbell | 5 Jan 2009 03:07

DIS: Re: agora-business digest, Vol 1 #2902 - 10 msgs

 > I publish a Notice of Violation accusing j of violating Rule 2170 by 
selecting (in B Nomic) a nickname that has generally been used to refer 
to another entity within the past three months.

I called myself comex in Monopoly last night too.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane