1 Jul 2008 02:15
1 Jul 2008 04:01
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration
Elliott Hird <penguinofthegods <at> googlemail.com>
2008-07-01 02:01:09 GMT
2008-07-01 02:01:09 GMT
All the credit goes to me, naturally, since I pushed em to do it. :P On 01/07/2008, Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly <at> gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Cctoide <cctoide <at> gmail.com> wrote: >> I hereby register under the nickname cctoide. > > Well, it's about time. You've been lurking for what, 2 years now? > > Welcome to Agora.> > -root >
12 Jan 2007 03:25
DIS: Re: BUS: registration and CFJs
Kerim Aydin <kerim <at> u.washington.edu>
2007-01-12 02:25:44 GMT
2007-01-12 02:25:44 GMT
Maud wrote: > Technically, this ought to be s#Welcome#Welcome back# ... After all, > Zefram was a Fugitive from Justice for over nine years. And so technically, by R1437, e still has a non-zero stain. Hmm, I guess the common definition of "stain" doesn't imply cardinality, either. -Goethe
11 Jan 2007 01:47
DIS: Re: BUS: registration and CFJs
Kerim Aydin <kerim <at> u.washington.edu>
2007-01-11 00:47:13 GMT
2007-01-11 00:47:13 GMT
Zefram wrote: > The CotC's posting of the Writ deregisters the Player, and the > "instructing the Registrar" bit is null. Thus Goethe is not a > Player. That's certainly a reasonable argument, but it's not what created the paradox. The paradox arose because Murphy assigned the CFJ to me before posting the Writ (so while I was still a unarguably a player), then assigned the CFJ to Sherlock after the Writ (when your argument may have held) and we (the judges) conspired to write our judgments so they deferred to each other, thereby invalidating themselves as judgments (circularly). That works regardless of the validity of the original argument (we did try to come up with reasonable arguments working on both sides, even though these may be unappealable). > It's this Pragmatic court system you've acquired that's causing > all the fuss. Yes, the posting of the Writ of FAGE by the player should automatically do the deregistering. I've wondered about where all that "inform the Herald" language came from. Funny thing is we ignored the language and treated it in a Platonist style for blots. Drove me crazy. ps. if you like the new rule 101, want to try to gut the judicial system... I ran out of steam on that one and we still need judicial reform (reform the mechanics to match R101 and the rest).(Continue reading)
11 Jan 2007 02:09
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: registration and CFJs
Ed Murphy <emurphy42 <at> socal.rr.com>
2007-01-11 01:09:12 GMT
2007-01-11 01:09:12 GMT
Goethe wrote:
> ps. if you like the new rule 101, want to try to gut the judicial
> system... I ran out of steam on that one and we still need judicial
> reform (reform the mechanics to match R101 and the rest).
Something along the lines of this outline?
i. Every person has the right to CFJ
ii. Every player has the right to Judge, unless explicitly
disqualified by a rule
iii. Every player has the right not to be punished worse than
a formal apology, unless evidence beyond reasonable doubt
iv. Every player has the right to file motions
v. Every set of 2+ players has the right to submit a
concurring or dissenting opinion
11 Jan 2007 01:57
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: registration and CFJs
Zefram <zefram <at> fysh.org>
2007-01-11 00:57:12 GMT
2007-01-11 00:57:12 GMT
Kerim Aydin wrote: > The paradox arose because ... >our judgments so they deferred to each other, thereby invalidating >themselves as judgments (circularly). That works regardless of the >validity of the original argument In a Platonist system this wouldn't be a problem. In the Platonist model, Judgements don't actually change the state of anything, they're just meant to point out what the state actually is. A contradiction of Judgements isn't a problem then: one of the purported Judgements is wrong and the other right, neither changes anything, and the game goes merrily on. Judges have power to affect things only in a Pragmatic system, which is what lands you in this mess. Now you have two Judgements claiming to actually change the game state, and you can't tell which one does. >ps. if you like the new rule 101, want to try to gut the judicial >system... Ooh, yes please. Looks like the judicial system makes up a good half or so of the current ruleset. I came to the tentative conclusion that you'd decided to centre the whole game on legal process for the time being. What started the Great Repeals anyway? They've been monstrously more successful than any of the Chromatic Repeals ever were. -zefram(Continue reading)
11 Jan 2007 08:37
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: registration and CFJs
Manuel Lanctot <sensoz <at> gmail.com>
2007-01-11 07:37:45 GMT
2007-01-11 07:37:45 GMT
On 1/11/07, Zefram wrote: > > Ooh, yes please. Looks like the judicial system makes up a good half or > so of the current ruleset. I came to the tentative conclusion that you'd > decided to centre the whole game on legal process for the time being. Let's repeal the whole legal system and replace it with "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" and see this Nomic go places. ~Manu
11 Jan 2007 02:43
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: registration and CFJs
Taral <taralx <at> gmail.com>
2007-01-11 01:43:43 GMT
2007-01-11 01:43:43 GMT
On 1/10/07, Zefram <zefram <at> fysh.org> wrote: > What started the Great Repeals anyway? They've been monstrously more > successful than any of the Chromatic Repeals ever were. We got bored. -- -- Taral <taralx <at> gmail.com> "You can't prove anything." -- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
11 Jan 2007 01:22
DIS: Re: BUS: registration and CFJs
Kerim Aydin <kerim <at> u.washington.edu>
2007-01-11 00:22:02 GMT
2007-01-11 00:22:02 GMT
root wrote: > 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. But what about the utility of calling a CFJ with only one eligible judge (of the caller's choosing)? I agree, nice one, Zefram! -Goethe
11 Jan 2007 01:29
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: registration and CFJs
Zefram <zefram <at> fysh.org>
2007-01-11 00:29:03 GMT
2007-01-11 00:29:03 GMT
Kerim Aydin wrote: >But what about the utility of calling a CFJ with only one eligible >judge (of the caller's choosing)? I agree, nice one, Zefram! Heh. What I like is that there's a procedure to unlink the CFJs, which would resolve the problem, but you can't do it until a Judge has been assigned. -zefram
11 Jan 2007 02:03
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: registration and CFJs
Ed Murphy <emurphy42 <at> socal.rr.com>
2007-01-11 01:03:36 GMT
2007-01-11 01:03:36 GMT
Zefram wrote:
> What I like is that there's a procedure to unlink the CFJs,
> which would resolve the problem, but you can't do it until a Judge has
> been assigned.
YAFI, YGI.
Proto-Proposal: Pre-emptive Unlinking
Amend Rule 2024 (Linked Statements) by appending, after this text:
Linked CFJs are multiple Calls for Judgement that are submitted
in a single message and clearly labelled as Linked CFJs.
this text:
The Clerk of the Courts may, without objection, unlink one or
more of the linked CFJs from the others by announcement. If e
unlinks more than one as a set, then those CFJs remain linked
to each other.
11 Jan 2007 10:54
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: registration and CFJs
Zefram <zefram <at> fysh.org>
2007-01-11 09:54:14 GMT
2007-01-11 09:54:14 GMT
Ed Murphy wrote: >YAFI, YGI. What does that expand to? > The Clerk of the Courts may, without objection, unlink one or > more of the linked CFJs from the others by announcement. If e > unlinks more than one as a set, then those CFJs remain linked > to each other. There are interacting time limits here. Taking an action Without Objection takes at least four days, and the Judge has to be assigned within a week. What if the CotC is away for three days? "Without Objection" and "Linked CFJs" should be capitalised. If the restriction on Barring passes -- it's the obvious fix -- then there's no need for preemptive unlinking. Unlinking is a matter to be decided on the content of the CFJs, so I think that's better left to a Judge rather than the CotC. -zefram
11 Jan 2007 17:39
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: registration and CFJs
Ed Murphy <emurphy42 <at> socal.rr.com>
2007-01-11 16:39:11 GMT
2007-01-11 16:39:11 GMT
Zefram wrote: > Ed Murphy wrote: >> YAFI, YGI. > > What does that expand to? "You asked for it, you got it". >> The Clerk of the Courts may, without objection, unlink one or >> more of the linked CFJs from the others by announcement. If e >> unlinks more than one as a set, then those CFJs remain linked >> to each other. > > There are interacting time limits here. Taking an action Without > Objection takes at least four days, and the Judge has to be assigned > within a week. What if the CotC is away for three days? In theory, the CotC may be prosecuted for violating ASAP. In practice, no one bothers to prosecute much of anything these days, but of course it only takes one vigilant player to change that. > "Without Objection" and "Linked CFJs" should be capitalised. Things have been drifting away from Wes's old practice of Capitalizing Words deemed to be Important. > If the restriction on Barring passes -- it's the obvious fix -- then > there's no need for preemptive unlinking. Unlinking is a matter to be(Continue reading)
RSS Feed