headers
omd | 2 May 2012 03:54
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: Ancient Golem Conspiracy

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 9:46 PM, John Smith <spambait3 <at> yahoo.com> wrote:
> As much fun as it would be to take over Agora with four golems and a President, I'd rather fix the problem than
wait four months to abuse it.  I cause BuckyBot to submit a proposal specified as follows:
> Title: Elder Things
> Text:
> {{
> In Rule 2357, replace the text "An Elder is a player" with "An Elder is a first-class player".
> }}
> Co-author: Bucky
> AI: 2

Note that this would have been part of 7212.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
omd | 4 May 2012 22:41
Picon

DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census

On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 3:26 PM, FKA441344 <441344 <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> FIRST-CLASS PLAYERS (23)
> Nickname            E-mail address                    Since
> ###############################################################
> ---------------------------ACTIVE (16)-------------------------

Thanks.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Kerim Aydin | 4 May 2012 23:05

DIS: Re: BUS: Re-propose


On Fri, 4 May 2012, omd wrote:
> Proposal: Untitled (AI=3, coauthor=G.)
> 
> Amend Rule 2350 (Proposals) by removing 'and an associated title'.

No complaints, but since proposals exist after they've failed,
(I think by precedent?) does specifying the same title run afoul
of Definition/Continuity of Entities (or any other rule?)
Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
omd | 4 May 2012 23:23
Picon

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re-propose

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Kerim Aydin <kerim <at> u.washington.edu> wrote:
> No complaints, but since proposals exist after they've failed,
> (I think by precedent?) does specifying the same title run afoul
> of Definition/Continuity of Entities (or any other rule?)

CFJ 1358, ... I thought there was a more recent precedent that a
proposal's name is not the same thing as its title, but I can't find
it.
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
omd | 4 May 2012 23:28
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Golemkeepor] Golem Census

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Kerim Aydin <kerim <at> u.washington.edu> wrote:
> Erm, speaking of which, I just noticed, non-players can own
> golems, no?  So a person can deregister and act through eir
> golem without punishment, no?

The person can be punished despite being deregistered (through Rule
2361, except it's broken by being restricted to Crimes), and if it's
necessary to enforce, a criminal case can be brought against the Golem
itself to exile it - non-players cannot *create* Golems.

Well, I guess there are a few loopholes in that scheme - a prospective
rule violator could create a large number of Golems, deregister,
ignore eir own punishments, and use the Golems one by one, or an
accomplice could transfer em golems.
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Kerim Aydin | 5 May 2012 00:03

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Golemkeepor] Golem Census


On Fri, 4 May 2012, omd wrote:
> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Kerim Aydin <kerim <at> u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > Erm, speaking of which, I just noticed, non-players can own
> > golems, no?  So a person can deregister and act through eir
> > golem without punishment, no?
> 
> The person can be punished despite being deregistered (through Rule
> 2361, except it's broken by being restricted to Crimes), and if it's
> necessary to enforce, a criminal case can be brought against the Golem
> itself to exile it - non-players cannot *create* Golems.
> 
> Well, I guess there are a few loopholes in that scheme - a prospective
> rule violator could create a large number of Golems, deregister,
> ignore eir own punishments, and use the Golems one by one, or an
> accomplice could transfer em golems.

Crimes aside, I'm trying to decide if non-player ownership (and ability 
to act on behalf of the golem) is a bug or feature, especially if
we're contemplating voting golems...
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Kerim Aydin | 5 May 2012 00:01

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re-propose


On Fri, 4 May 2012, omd wrote:
> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Kerim Aydin <kerim <at> u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > No complaints, but since proposals exist after they've failed,
> > (I think by precedent?) does specifying the same title run afoul
> > of Definition/Continuity of Entities (or any other rule?)
> 
> CFJ 1358, ... I thought there was a more recent precedent that a
> proposal's name is not the same thing as its title, but I can't find
> it.

The difference was that at the time of 1358, the rules didn't define
or specify what a proposal's title was at all, and now you have to 
submit with the "associated title", so arguably that's a legislative
override of 1358, and the submitted title is the true title 
nowadays.  And saying "name != title" is a bit of a stretch; pretty
much synonymous for a body of text (and may break other things to
say it isn't).  So the question is, does the more recent precedent 
deal with that added bit? -G.
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
omd | 5 May 2012 03:58
Picon

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Golemkeepor] Golem Census

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Kerim Aydin <kerim <at> u.washington.edu> wrote:
> Crimes aside, I'm trying to decide if non-player ownership (and ability
> to act on behalf of the golem) is a bug or feature, especially if
> we're contemplating voting golems...

I've always thought that non-player participation (and partnerships in
general) make for a fun warping of the rules.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
omd | 5 May 2012 04:02
Picon

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re-propose

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Kerim Aydin <kerim <at> u.washington.edu> wrote:
> The difference was that at the time of 1358, the rules didn't define
> or specify what a proposal's title was at all, and now you have to
> submit with the "associated title", so arguably that's a legislative
> override of 1358, and the submitted title is the true title
> nowadays.  And saying "name != title" is a bit of a stretch; pretty
> much synonymous for a body of text (and may break other things to
> say it isn't).  So the question is, does the more recent precedent
> deal with that added bit? -G.

Well, "Proposal 1234" is still a reasonable name, and proposal ID
numbers are now explicitly mentioned (if not precisely defined).

Under the theory that repealed rules can still influence game custom,
Rule 2161 (ID Numbers) used to read:

      (d) If an instance of that type has an ID number, then its name
          is the combination of its type and ID number.  Otherwise, it
          has no name.

Actually, that might be what I was thinking of, rather than a precedent.
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
omd | 5 May 2012 23:01
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 7218-7226 (+ ratification)

On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 4:12 AM, FKA441344 <441344 <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> AGAINST (the same wording is used in rule 2326 and 103 for the President)

Which is unfortunate; in contrast, Promises and the Acting on Behalf
rule that preceded it are defined in terms of sending messages.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane