Nomic 5 - Proposal 302 "Thingagenesis" (Passed)

Moderators: Crunkus, connect4

Re: Nomic 5 - Proposal 302 "Thingagenesis" AP Consent Requir

Postby Pagane » 20 Feb 2014, 21:31

Ugluk wrote:My consent is implied.

glittle is correct about connect4 also being inactive, which presents a question of how to maintain score and rule set, since connect4's inactivity is no just rhetoric.


Can another player post below Connect4's scoreboard and Game Rules and edit to keep the information updated?
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.

Previously known as Santiago Matamoros.
User avatar
Pagane
 
Posts: 596
Joined: 04 Nov 2013, 01:59
Location: Wine Country, Virginia
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1079)
All-game rating: (1085)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Nomic 5 - Proposal 302 "Thingagenesis" AP Consent Requir

Postby Pagane » 20 Feb 2014, 21:31

With Ugluk's consent, we have a majority.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.

Previously known as Santiago Matamoros.
User avatar
Pagane
 
Posts: 596
Joined: 04 Nov 2013, 01:59
Location: Wine Country, Virginia
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1079)
All-game rating: (1085)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Nomic 5 - Proposal 302 "Thingagenesis" AP Consent Requir

Postby Ugluk » 20 Feb 2014, 21:44

Pagane wrote:With Connect4 inactive due to lack of Judgement, Glittle and Dipsy inactive per Ugluk's Judgement, and Pezgod and Numberwang inactive due to inactivity, that leaves 4 active players: Crunkus, Ugluk, Quantum Hovercraft, and myself.

We have 2/4 consenting to a continuation. We need one more vote to reach a majority.

My Proposal 303 should be ready to go by then.


212. clearly states that consent is required of a majority of players other than player whose turn is up next. So your (Pagane's) consent is irrelevant.
212. does not state any time limits. If we were down to three players, e.g. Crunkus, Pagane, and Ugluk, Crunkus could claim victory by indefinitely denying consent.
212. does not state how we are to know that we have such consent. Crunkus has explicitly stated his. Mine may be inferred by my prompting Pagane to begin his turn. Could we infer consent of other parties if no remaining active participants weighed in on glittle's activity status?
Niakan is a tease.
User avatar
Ugluk
 
Posts: 3220
Joined: 19 May 2009, 23:55
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1048)
All-game rating: (1028)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Nomic 5 - Proposal 302 "Thingagenesis" AP Consent Requir

Postby Crunkus » 20 Feb 2014, 22:10

Ugluk wrote:212. does not state any time limits. If we were down to three players, e.g. Crunkus, Pagane, and Ugluk, Crunkus could claim victory by indefinitely denying consent.



I cannot indefinitely deny consent absent life-extension technologies. Can you?

Ugluk wrote:212. does not state how we are to know that we have such consent. Crunkus has explicitly stated his. Mine may be inferred by my prompting Pagane to begin his turn. Could we infer consent of other parties if no remaining active participants weighed in on glittle's activity status?


Yours does not need to be inferred. You said it was implied with your second post.

On what basis would you be inferring anyone's consent?

I would certainly support legislation to clean up the language. But I don't think inferring is meaningful in this context when you have absolutely nothing to base it upon.
(sigh)
Crunkus
 
Posts: 17650
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
All-game rating: (944)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Nomic 5 - Proposal 302 "Thingagenesis" AP Consent Requir

Postby Ugluk » 20 Feb 2014, 23:24

Crunkus wrote:
Ugluk wrote:212. does not state any time limits. If we were down to three players, e.g. Crunkus, Pagane, and Ugluk, Crunkus could claim victory by indefinitely denying consent.



I cannot indefinitely deny consent absent life-extension technologies. Can you?


Well, if you did not consent (explicitly or otherwise) and got hit by a bus (sorry.. it comes up a lot at work for some reason .. I think managers fantasize about driving the buses) today, we would still not have your consent, and you would still be an active player. And a winner!

Crunkus, abridged wrote:
Ugluk wrote:Could we infer consent of other parties if no remaining active participants weighed in on glittle's activity status?


On what basis would you be inferring anyone's consent?

I would certainly support legislation to clean up the language. But I don't think inferring is meaningful in this context when you have absolutely nothing to base it upon.


The basis of inferring, or assuming if you prefer, consent of the remaining players is that they were not involved in the issue under judgement, provided no opinion on the matter, and were in all other respects divorced from the matter. I presume that the reason for requiring consent is to allow for the immediate contesting of the judgement, before play resumes. So judged, we could conceivably still attain a 3/4ths majority to overrule my decision, in which case the matter is reopened and the judgement role would fall upon my predecessor.

Would anyone like to call for a judgement on the requirements for consent, as per Rule 212? :?
Niakan is a tease.
User avatar
Ugluk
 
Posts: 3220
Joined: 19 May 2009, 23:55
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1048)
All-game rating: (1028)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Nomic 5 - Proposal 302 "Thingagenesis" AP Consent Requir

Postby Crunkus » 21 Feb 2014, 00:48

Ugluk wrote:
Well, if you did not consent (explicitly or otherwise) and got hit by a bus (sorry.. it comes up a lot at work for some reason .. I think managers fantasize about driving the buses) today, we would still not have your consent, and you would still be an active player. And a winner!



Hurm. I see your point. Fix the wording, it sucks. I certainly don't want to twin this way.

Ugluk wrote:The basis of inferring, or assuming if you prefer, consent of the remaining players is that they were not involved in the issue under judgement, provided no opinion on the matter, and were in all other respects divorced from the matter.


The basis is a lack of a positive indicators for consent. The rest is supposition about what it might mean. We need to clean up that wording. Somebody better do it before I do it, because I'll add enough flare to make Ugluk vomit on super dipsy's shoes.
(sigh)
Crunkus
 
Posts: 17650
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
All-game rating: (944)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Nomic 5 - Proposal 302 "Thingagenesis" (Passed)

Postby Quantum Hovercraft » 23 Feb 2014, 13:55

If I give consent does that sort the mess out.
Quantum Hovercraft
 
Posts: 7
Joined: 12 Feb 2014, 18:36
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Previous

Return to Nomic 5 (finished)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests