Identity
Filter
Visitors
(0) (0) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
top-politics
-
10/06/06 01:54
20060609#parlement
—- Log opened ven jun 09 00:00:17 2006 —- Day changed ven jun 09 2006
- 00:00 < echarp> hello again
- 00:00 < echarp> I’m about to go to bed, rather late here
- 00:00 < echarp> dance? I can sometimes, if the lady permits :)
- 00:00 * nsh smiles
- 00:00 * nsh just came back from his swing lesson
- 00:01 < nsh> very exhausting
- 00:01 < echarp> woaw
- 00:01 < echarp> cool
- 00:01 < echarp> you stay around so we can maybe talk tomorrow?
- 00:01 < nsh> sure
- 00:01 < echarp> and try that fiatlex nomic bot maybe
- 00:01 < echarp> cooool
- 00:01 < echarp> good night then, cu!
- 00:01 < nsh> nomic bot?
- 00:01 < nsh> hmm, sounds fun
- 00:02 < nsh> sleep well
- 00:02 < echarp> you know the game?
- 00:02 < echarp> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic
- 00:02 < echarp> but we could (and/or should) talk about democracy, transparency, those sort of things, we’ll see ;)
- 00:04 * nsh smiles
- 00:04 < nsh> we will first have to discuss this idea of democracy as an ultimate end…#
- 00:05 < nsh> but rest, for now :-)
- 00:05 < echarp> ultimate, well, I would not consider it as such, far from it
- 00:05 < echarp> I’ll sleep on it ;)
- 06:16 < urgen> as ultimate can have no beginning it surely will have no end, how something with such can lead to the other takes a pretty sharp eye to notice
- 07:51
!charles8851 (gaim) [n=charles@pool-71-111-30-136.ptldor.dsl-w.verizon.net] has joined #parlement - 08:21 < urgen> hi charles8851
- 09:00 < charles8851> urgen?
- 09:01 < urgen> hi
- 09:01 < charles8851> i do not recognize your handle.
- 09:01 < urgen> ya, that’s ok
- 09:01 < urgen> I just followed illegale here
- 09:02 < charles8851> can you identify yourself? Do i know you?
- 09:02 < urgen> I’m interested in the automation of consensus
- 09:02 < urgen> I doubt you know me
- 09:02 < charles8851> “consensus”, very good.
- 09:02 < charles8851> ok, are you familiar with the TOP group?
- 09:03 < urgen> I’ve scanned it a little
- 09:03 < urgen> the wiki wasn’t really working the last time I looked and I haven’t had a chance to look again
- 09:05 < charles8851> have you sen the recent irc chat posts from emmanuel?
- 09:05 < urgen> not yet, where is that?
- 09:05 < urgen> was it this channel?
- 09:05 < charles8851> illegal/gale was there on the last one .
- 09:06 < charles8851> if you have an email address, ill send you a copy.
- 09:06 < charles8851> it was here.
- 09:06 < urgen> oh not even online in the logs?
- 09:06 < charles8851> “logos”, no comprehendo.
- 09:06 < charles8851> ??
- 09:06 < charles8851> o
- 09:06 < charles8851> loggs"
- 09:06 < charles8851> ok.
- 09:06 < urgen> I thought that this channel was being recorded and you can read it on a web site
- 09:07 < charles8851> mmmmmmmmm.
- 09:07 < charles8851> i do not believe so, but i could be wrong.
- 09:08 < urgen> so I can read the conversation with emmanuel there, perhaps
- 09:09 < charles8851> where?
- 09:09 < urgen> http://leparlement.org/top-politics
- 09:10 < charles8851> perhaps, i do not know.
- 09:10 < charles8851> are you from Sweden, like Illegal/Gale?
- 09:11 < urgen> o emmanuel is echarp?
- 09:11 < urgen> I live a couple hours north of san francisco
- 09:13 < charles8851> cool, im in oregon
- 09:14 < charles8851> emmanuel is echarp, yes.
- 09:14 < urgen> lived in corvallis for a few years am from klamath falls
- 09:14 < charles8851> if you like “consensus”, are you aware that american constitutional jury-trial process requires “consensus”?
- 09:15 < urgen> I’m aware that every definition is open for debate :-)
- 09:15 < charles8851> my dad spent some of his childhood in klamath falls. He was born in woodburn. I live in sandy, just 10 miles east of gresham or so.
- 09:16 < charles8851> there is always debate between the forces of good and evil.
- 09:16 < urgen> definition, itself, seems to transcend good and evil
- 09:16 < charles8851> but the forces of good are always capable of arriving at firm “consensus”.
- 09:17 < charles8851> your definition of “good” is lacking, good sir.
- 09:17 < urgen> so you want to set a limit even before you decide? why?
- 09:18 < charles8851> “Consensus”.
- 09:18 < charles8851> I thought you would comprehend.
- 09:19 < urgen> so what, if anything, does agreement have to do with consensus?
- 09:21 < charles8851> the terms are interchangeable, synonymous. by my understanding.
- 09:22 < urgen> so, then, is also ‘good’ interchangeable?
- 09:22 < charles8851> no
- 09:22 < urgen> you you are correct, you confused me
- 09:22 < charles8851> “consensus” is a tool of good.
- 09:23 < charles8851> it can be mis-used, like a gun, or anything.
- 09:23 < charles8851> but it is very difficult to be mis-used.
- 09:23 < charles8851> especially when common people are encouraged to use it liberally.
- 09:25 < urgen> so common people are still good, even tho there was a mistake
- 09:26 < echarp> hello hello
- 09:26 < charles8851> You made 2 propositions. i can not agree with either.
- 09:27 < urgen> I’m sorry, I only thought I was restating what you said
- 09:27 < urgen> if you don’t agree you probably need to share more
- 09:27 < charles8851> the average common person is basically good, if that is what you intended to say.
- 09:28 < charles8851> i have no idea what you referred to as the “mistake”.
- 09:28 < urgen> where does unintentional mis-use come from?
- 09:28 < urgen> not just a mistake?
- 09:28 < charles8851> contemplating …
- 09:30 < charles8851> i suppose that “unintentional mis-use” is the equivalent of a “mistake”. How does that all relate? What is your point?
- 09:30 < urgen> hey, you’re the one that brought up mis-use, not me
- 09:30 < urgen> what’s your point?
- 09:30 < charles8851> huh?
- 09:31 < charles8851> emmanuel ?
- 09:31 < echarp> yes charles8851
- 09:31 < echarp> how are you?
- 09:31 < charles8851> good.
- 09:31 < charles8851> confused.
- 09:31 < echarp> charles8851: urgen is interested into semantics, definitions, and democracy :)
- 09:32 < echarp> he will not just accept something, you need to lay some common ground before
- 09:32 < charles8851> sounds good, we were in some well-focused nit-picking.
- 09:32 < echarp> which is proper philosophical process I believe :)
- 09:32 < charles8851> he had me in the corner.
- 09:32 < charles8851> yes, ues. :)
- 09:32 < charles8851> yes.
- 09:32 < charles8851> “mis-use”? contemplating …
- 09:33 < urgen> so my clumsy way of trying to understand needs a little help, I apologize
- 09:33 < echarp> you know my positions, consensus are great, but I don’t build everything on them
- 09:33 < charles8851> where did i bring up “Mis-Use”; urgen?
- 09:33 < echarp> the channel is effectiveley recorded by the way
- 09:33
!Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org/top-politics - 09:33
!Topic set by echarp [n=33M002Pa@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] [Thu Jun 1 18:29:11 2006] - 09:33 < charles8851> fair warning, yes :)
- 09:34 < urgen>
“consensus” is a tool of good. - 09:34 < urgen>
it can be mis-used, like a gun, or anything. - 09:34 < urgen>
but it is very difficult to be mis-used. - 09:34 < charles8851> yes, ok,
- 09:34 < urgen> looks like mis-use to me
- 09:34 < echarp> well, you might need to share goals
- 09:34 < charles8851> ok, brain fade.
- 09:35 < echarp> what are your goals? happiness? fortune? durability?…
- 09:38 < charles8851> Urgin, you referred to “unintentional mis-use”, while my use of “mis-use” was intended to denote “purposeful mis-use”.
- 09:39 < charles8851> there-under, my use of the term was not he equivalent of your “Mistake”.
- 09:39 < urgen> so common people purposefully fight consensus
- 09:40 < echarp> urgen: from what I can gather, charles8851 defends the fact that only consensus is a “legitimate” decision making process, it is my understanding
- 09:41 < urgen> well, I’d have no problem with that but charles8851 seems to have taken issue with my undertanding of consensus without even asking
- 09:41 < urgen> so now I’m just wondering what the difference could possibly be
- 09:42 < charles8851> ummmmm, im getting the feeling that my words are being “purposefully mis-used” by you, Urgen.
- 09:42 < charles8851> yes, emmanuel.
- 09:42 < echarp> it might just getting very late for both your brains! :)
- 09:42 < echarp> here it’s morning time! 09:43! :)
- 09:42 < urgen> isn’t it a good idea to try to repeat what the other person has said to make sure it was heard the way it was originally intended?
- 09:43 < urgen> sheesh. now I’m being attacked for just trying to undersand..
- 09:43 < charles8851> yes, so long as the under-lying intent of his words are not being twisted to suit an alternative agenda.
- 09:43 < charles8851> that is what they all say ….
- 09:43 < urgen> well, you should be the only one to be able to verify your intent
- 09:43 < charles8851> no, i seek consensus.
- 09:43 < urgen> I’d think I shouldn’t be able to tell you what you are feeling without asking first
- 09:44 < charles8851> there is a point at which judgement of evil can be arrived at.
- 09:45 < echarp> charles8851: I believe urgen is just trying to understand you truthfully, yes, to do that he questions the basic axioms of one’s thought
- 09:45 < echarp> that can be unsettling (sort of was on me too :)
- 09:46 < charles8851> conscience-bound juries can justifiably declare the death penalty.
- 09:46 < charles8851> these are not difficult concepts.
- 09:46 < urgen> there probably should be a line that makes it easy to understand what to take and what to leave behind
- 09:46 < charles8851> evil is to be left behind.
- 09:47 < echarp> you do start with many assumptions charles8851, which could need ground work
- 09:47 < echarp> assumptions for discourse and mutual understanding
- 09:47 < charles8851> Urgen said: “so common people purposefully fight consensus”.
- 09:48 < charles8851> I said no such thing.
- 09:48 < charles8851> he had no reasonable basis for so mis-construing my words.
- 09:48 < urgen>
especially when common people are encouraged to use it liberally. - 09:48 < urgen> even you’d have to admit that’s not the clearest of sentences to get
- 09:49 < urgen> common people
- 09:49 < echarp> maybe you are two incompatible chatters :)
- 09:49 < urgen> using something liberally
- 09:49 < charles8851> using consensuc liberally
- 09:49 < urgen> and since right before that mis-use of consensus was being discussed
- 09:49 < urgen> so I thought you meant that somehow these common people were contributing to the mis-use
- 09:50 < urgen> I thought, surely they aren’t doing it on purpose, so I asked you whether or not it could be unintentional
- 09:50 < charles8851> “Use” is different than “mis—use” !
- 09:50 < urgen> you said yes, non intentional, but then, now you retract that and change your position…
- 09:50 < charles8851> no, no, no.
- 09:50 < urgen> hmn, I’m starting to wonder about whether or not perhaps you are not one of these common people being swayed by evil
- 09:51 < charles8851> you are faster than i am wiling to move.
- 09:51 < charles8851> you make your own decisions.
- 09:52 < charles8851> i know when im being taken for a sucker.
- 09:52 < charles8851> go find a sucker somewhere else.
- 09:54 < echarp> seems this does go nowhere :(
- 09:54 < echarp> this can happen, too bad
- 09:54 < urgen> I will apologize again but only to wish for some clearing of the air. I do not appreciate this judgement without representation. Is not consensus at least an agreement between two people? Why would you try to forward an opinion about good and evil without first even asking me about it?
- 09:55 < urgen> that’s not fair at all
- 09:55 < charles8851> it is a “proposition”.
- 09:55 < urgen> whose sucker is whose?
- 09:55 < charles8851> You can disagree.
- 09:55 < urgen> I can not agree or disagree without a definition
- 09:55 < charles8851> huh?
- 09:56 < urgen> of the billions of people on this Earth there are at least that many billions of differences even for simple words like good and evil
- 09:56 < urgen> to which to you refer?
- 09:56 < urgen> how can I possibly tell?
- 09:56 < charles8851> you need definitions for good and evil?
- 09:56 < urgen> why of course?
- 09:56 < charles8851> ????
- 09:56 < urgen> I should not think you’d accept mine without asking either
- 09:57 < charles8851> wrong.
- 09:57 < urgen> oh then you must believe that evil is a fantasy
- 09:57 < urgen> no?
- 09:57 < echarp> charles8851, yes you think there are absolutes which everybody must accept?
- 09:57 < charles8851> you sound like a “moral relativist”, yes?
- 09:58 < urgen> I do not hold the position of a moral relativist, but I do understand what you are trying to ask
- 09:58 < charles8851> do both of yo think there is Nothing which is clearly “Evil” on this earth"
- 09:58 < urgen> the morals of a corpration do not always follow the morals of a care taker of the elderly
- 09:58 < charles8851> are there “No Absolutes” for either of you?
- 09:58 < urgen> and so we have relative positions or morality
- 09:59 < charles8851> dont weasel on me.
- 09:59 < urgen> I’m not sure you can just pull the use of a term out from under someone and claim that it does not exist
- 09:59 < charles8851> hitler?
- 09:59 < urgen> that will lead to direct and intense frustration
- 09:59 < charles8851> i did not “just pull” the term “evil”.
- 09:59 < charles8851> hitler?
- 09:59 * echarp think there are effectively no absolutes that we can know “for sure”
- 10:00 < charles8851> hitler may be ok, yes?
- 10:00 < urgen> you discarded the option for there to be the chance of any differing view
- 10:00 < urgen> sounds like a rug being pulled somewhere
- 10:00 < charles8851> hitler is ok, yes?
- 10:00 < urgen> wonder whose butt will tell the story
- 10:00 < charles8851> no one here willing to comment on hitler?
- 10:00 < echarp> charles8851: you did the hitler thing before, do you remember the link to “godwin’s rule”?
- 10:00 < charles8851> no
- 10:00 < charles8851> yes.
- 10:01 < charles8851> weasle argu,ments
- 10:01 < charles8851> evasive
- 10:01 < echarp> charles8851: hitler is just a call to emotions, not reason
- 10:01 < charles8851> you refuse to reason about how to deal with true evil
- 10:01 < echarp> on the internet it is customary to end a thread whenever one pulls the “hitler” argument
- 10:01 < urgen> I dealt with it clean and soundly already
- 10:02 < charles8851> well, it appears that you both have consensus.
- 10:02 < charles8851> i wish you both well.
- 10:02 < echarp> I wish it for you too
- 10:02 < urgen> you may have some too charles8851
- 10:02 < echarp> but shame we can’t manage discussion
- 10:03 < charles8851> the lemming problem swamps us, emmanuel.
- 10:03 < echarp> charles8851: do come back, I assume being a moral relativist :)
- 10:03 < echarp> and I will gladly confront all those claiming knowledge of asbolutes! :)
- 10:04 < charles8851> so, there may be “absolutes”, but we can not know of them?
- 10:04 < urgen> agree
- 10:04 < urgen> you can have the space but the moment you touch it then you corrupt it
- 10:05 < charles8851> cheezzz, pass the cyanide.
- 10:05 < urgen> you are welcome
- 10:05 < urgen> by definition.. an ultimate and a relative can not touch
- 10:06 < urgen> touching, itself, demands a relative condition
- 10:06 < urgen> so whatever it touches will also become relative
- 10:06 < urgen> by nature
- 10:06 < echarp> there may be yes
- 10:06 < urgen> if you can show me some different
- 10:06 < echarp> it’s a way to consider it yes
- 10:07 < echarp> our imperfect nature would/could destroy any perfection it encounters :)
- 10:07 < charles8851> the wisdom of lemmings.
- 10:07 < urgen> if you want to go that far.. as judging, is also relative
- 10:07 < echarp> wisdom of lemmings? are we lemmings?
- 10:08 < charles8851> you speak as lemmings.
- 10:08 < echarp> do we follow someone off a cliff or something?
- 10:08 < echarp> I believe I have come to those conclusions after years of thinking
- 10:08 < charles8851> you abandon the sovereign power to make judgements to the corrupted powers that be.
- 10:09 < charles8851> you need more years, emmanuel.
- 10:09 < charles8851> judgements wil be made.
- 10:09 < echarp> I abandon what???
- 10:10 < charles8851> the only question is whether it will be common people of good conscience, or the power-mongering usurpers.
- 10:10 < charles8851> the seat of judgement, you abandon..
- 10:10 < echarp> sorry, I don’t see what you are talking about :(
- 10:10 < charles8851> the judges who order your friends thrown in prison !!!
- 10:11 < urgen> so we can’t even call ultimate ‘perfect’
- 10:11 < urgen> can an agreement disagree with itself?
- 10:11 < urgen> yes means you do not trust logic, no means consistency is important to you
- 10:11 < urgen> it nearly sounds like you do not even trust consistency
- 10:11 < urgen> that would be a pretty sad state to find yourself in
- 10:11 < urgen> rather scared and hesitant to touch anything
- 10:11 < urgen> from here, perhaps, one could force themselves to believe in having access to ultimate means
- 10:11 < urgen> but this intensity is not genuine at all
- 10:11 < urgen> and by the very continuity of experience one will eventually see
- 10:11 < charles8851> corrupted men make those judgments because you two refuse to.
- 10:12 < charles8851> anarchist
- 10:12 < echarp> I am here to work on democracy and to define what is liberty and when its limits are crossed and could result in jail time or such
- 10:13 < echarp> urgen: don’t pull a gödel, too complex I’m afraid
- 10:13 < echarp> :)
- 10:13 < charles8851> who decides top punish those who cross the line of liberty, emmanuel?
- 10:14 < urgen> top has no police
- 10:14 < urgen> why do you ask?
- 10:14 < echarp> the group of those interacting, who define among themselves what is liberty
- 10:14 < echarp> urgen: top has no police… yet anyway :)
- 10:14 < urgen> :-)
- 10:14 < echarp> urgen: it’s a game of nomic, we don’t have rules yet
- 10:15 < echarp> charles8851: I’m very epicurian that way, I consider that a group of responsible individuals can manage to define liberty and what to do when one crosses its borders
- 10:15 < urgen> so I am not allowed the liberty to learn because charles8851 has already decided..
- 10:15 < urgen> wow some freedom that is
- 10:16 < echarp> urgen: what are you speaking about?
- 10:16 < urgen> charles8851’s version of liberty would not allow one to learn
- 10:16 < urgen> this is not an option for the ultimate is already plain as our noses on our face
- 10:16 < echarp> I do not know about that
- 10:17 < echarp> oh, that way, ok I get it
- 10:17 < urgen> yet if you miss that then you will end up being judged
- 10:17 < urgen> and wo the end of those judged..
- 10:17 < urgen> for what a silly mistake
- 10:17 < urgen> wow
- 10:17 < urgen> so much hate
- 10:17 < urgen> so much fear
- 10:17 < urgen> sad
- 10:17 < echarp> if absolutes exist and can be known, there is yet another step charles8851 might take which is to say: “there are absolute we can and must know”
- 10:18 < echarp> “which can and must be known”
- 10:18 < urgen> I would be willing to explore a position like that
- 10:18 < urgen> without trying there would not be much value to life
- 10:18 < charles8851> there is a difference between stupidity and evil.
- 10:18 < echarp> I believe it could very well be his position, but I am not sure
- 10:19 < charles8851> yes, emmanuel.
- 10:19 < charles8851> we must know when to defend the community with force.
- 10:19 < urgen> well surely you can not comdemn first then
- 10:19 < urgen> or can you?
- 10:19 < charles8851> that is an “necessary absolute”.
- 10:19 < urgen> charles8851 loves that condemnation switch
- 10:19 < charles8851> no, after unanimous 12-person jury-trial.
- 10:20 < echarp> charles8851: I disagree, but we can talk about that I suppose
- 10:20 < charles8851> “consensus”
- 10:20 < echarp> what are the absolutes we all know or we all must know?
- 10:20 < urgen> a consensus of one, a consensus of two, a consensus of three…
- 10:20 < urgen> a consensus of all participants
- 10:21 < charles8851> there is a time for “condemnation”. after the “pathway of peace” has been clearly exhausted.
- 10:21 < charles8851> consensus of 12.
- 10:21 < urgen> sorry I must have mistaken a slap in the face for exploration to pathway of peace
- 10:21 < urgen> or versa visa
- 10:21 < charles8851> less leads to private agendas, more leads to confusion & chaos. the process is very ancient.
- 10:22 < urgen> because I’m getting too sleepy
- 10:22 < urgen> late now far too
- 10:22 < urgen> good night
- 10:22 < echarp> good night urgen, I hope we’ll talk again!
- 10:23 < echarp> charles8851: are there absolutes we must know?
- 10:40 < echarp> charles8851: still here?
- 10:41 < charles8851> took a break. & need a bit more, em.
- 10:41 < charles8851> back in a bit.
- 10:42 < echarp> :)
- 10:42 < echarp> bon appétit
- 10:55
!charles8851 [n=charles@pool-71-111-30-136.ptldor.dsl-w.verizon.net] has quit [“Download Gaim: ”http://gaim.sourceforge.net/“>http://gaim.sourceforge.net/”] - 10:55
!charles8851 (gaim) [n=charles@pool-71-111-30-136.ptldor.dsl-w.verizon.net] has joined #parlement - 10:56 < echarp> hello again charles8851 !
- 10:57
!charles8851 [n=charles@pool-71-111-30-136.ptldor.dsl-w.verizon.net] has quit [Client Quit] - 11:01
!charles8851 (gaim) [n=charles@pool-71-111-30-136.ptldor.dsl-w.verizon.net] has joined #parlement - 11:04
!charles8851 is now known as charles434444334 - 11:04
!charles434444334 is now known as charles8851 - 11:08
!charles8851 [n=charles@pool-71-111-30-136.ptldor.dsl-w.verizon.net] has left #parlement [] - 11:09
!charles8851 (gaim) [n=charles@pool-71-111-30-136.ptldor.dsl-w.verizon.net] has joined #parlement - 11:10
!charles8851 is now known as foobbbbbbbbbbbbb - 11:10
!foobbbbbbbbbbbbb is now known as charles8851 - 11:13
!charles8851 [n=charles@pool-71-111-30-136.ptldor.dsl-w.verizon.net] has quit [Client Quit] - 11:14
!charles8851 (gaim) [n=charles@pool-71-111-30-136.ptldor.dsl-w.verizon.net] has joined #parlement - 11:16
!charles8851 [n=charles@pool-71-111-30-136.ptldor.dsl-w.verizon.net] has left #parlement [] - 11:16
!charles8851 (gaim) [n=charles@pool-71-111-30-136.ptldor.dsl-w.verizon.net] has joined #parlement - 18:52 < urgen> wow, guess I slept in a little
- 18:53 < echarp> :)
- 18:53 < echarp> like 14h in the morning? ;)
- 18:55 < urgen> it’s 10am
- 18:55 < echarp> not that bad then!
- 18:55 < urgen> and I’m hungry
- 18:56 < echarp> :)
- 18:56 < echarp> me its 19:00
- 18:57 < urgen> so you’ve had thoughts about ‘the first agreement’ or ‘the first set of initial agreements?’
- 18:57 < urgen> for the game to play it would be by making agreements
- 18:57
!illegale (illegale) [i=illegale@cmung3196.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement - 18:57 < urgen> but agreements have yet to be defined
- 18:58 < urgen> hi illegale
- 18:58 < illegale> hey :)
- 18:58 < echarp> hello hello illegale
- 18:58 < urgen> agreement(s), the term
- 18:58 < echarp> urgen: I’ve given some thoughts about it yes
- 18:58 < echarp> the first things should be about new players, then goals of the game
- 18:58 < urgen> you’ll notice a definitions section in a lot of legal and legislative style documents
- 18:59 < urgen> this definitions section should be displayed somewhere it can be easy to refer to
- 18:59 < illegale> Urgen, you know for sd2?
- 18:59 < echarp> I’m sure there are, but I don’t read much legal documents
- 18:59 < illegale> how is that?
- 18:59 < echarp> legal documents are not agreeable
- 18:59 < urgen> :-)
- 18:59 < urgen> but there basis is
- 18:59 < urgen> their
- 19:00 < echarp> then you can consider there need to be a definition for “players”, and possibly “goals” :)
- 19:01 < urgen> and there is probably some interaction between player as definition and as rule
- 19:01 < urgen> did illegale get a chance to read some of the log?
- 19:01 < illegale> yes
- 19:01 < illegale> Did not pass thhrough all of it
- 19:01 < urgen> I’m just going to work from the crucible of the game on this channel for now
- 19:02 < urgen> nothing exists except the traffic that has passed here
- 19:02 < urgen> and attempt to formalize traffic as it happens
- 19:02 < illegale> Urgen, how is that that you know for sd2?
- 19:02 < illegale> nice
- 19:02 < urgen> echarp just, sort of, loosely proposed sd2 as a venue
- 19:03 < illegale> ahoh :)
- 19:03 < illegale> though oif small internet :)
- 19:03 < urgen> didn’t you echarp?
- 19:03 < echarp> nope, certainly not
- 19:03 < urgen> not for a place to put the definitions section?
- 19:03 < urgen> then I misunderstood
- 19:04 < urgen> and, besides, a definition section was, also, just a proposal itself
- 19:04 < urgen> so we have proposals.. but maybe, still, that too, is just a proposal
- 19:04 < echarp> there are plenty of voting methods to choose from, no need for a byzantyne mere “umbrella” system as SD2 is
- 19:04 < urgen> so we are in this boot strap phase of the game all constitutional democracies go through
- 19:05 < echarp> and this phase is most interesting!
- 19:05 < echarp> urgen: so, that means democracy is an axiom or a goal? :)
- 19:05 < urgen> you once asked whether the first jump would allow implicit rules
- 19:05 < illegale> huh
- 19:05 < urgen> even that, still yet, is another proposal :-)
- 19:05 < illegale> you go axioatic
- 19:05 < illegale> axiomatic?
- 19:05 < illegale> from constitution to realisation?
- 19:06 < echarp> illegale: we are merely speaking about the game of nomic
- 19:06 < echarp> which is ground for discussing political systems
- 19:06 < urgen> so it seems like without a defined process for [ entry, review, refinement, deliberation, implementation ] or however that process comes to be defined… we can’t move forward
- 19:06 < echarp> their definitions, their very “raison d’être”
- 19:07 < echarp> urgen: we could move forward I guess, just it seems like very important steps
- 19:07 < echarp> I mean, how to manage new players entering the game? or leaving the game?
- 19:07 < urgen> ok, then,, whether any lasting value should be included as a goal decides that
- 19:08 < urgen> short sight = short life
- 19:08 < echarp> goals are important :)
- 19:08 < urgen> maybe it is boring to have things good for too long and someone will want to just hit the reset button
- 19:08 < echarp> to me it tells about the context
- 19:09 < illegale> Echapr,can you jon ESP discussion?
- 19:09 < echarp> yeap
- 19:12 < urgen> I am not lacking on logbot library options
- 19:12 < echarp> I’m sure there a huge number of log bots available
- 19:12 < urgen> the one you have doesn’t work they way you need it to?
- 19:12 < echarp> there are a few ruby ones I possibly could hook up on top of “parlement”
- 19:13 < echarp> right now it’s me sending mails to our web forum, daily
- 19:13 < urgen> oh
- 19:13 < urgen> ok
- 19:13 < echarp> I can automatise it easily, unix command line! :)
- 19:13 < urgen> I’m looking for the link of the one I think is the best I’ve seen so far
- 19:14 < echarp> which does what?
- 19:14 < illegale> logging?
- 19:14 < urgen> makes it easy to excerpt from the log and create independent documents
- 19:14 < echarp> but logging is definitely easy
- 19:14 < illegale> is there free host to it?
- 19:14 < echarp> what kind of logging???
- 19:14 < urgen> I also have hosting
- 19:15 < illegale> I mean writing it down
- 19:15 < illegale> in html format
- 19:15 < illegale> ops
- 19:15 < urgen> it has a web interface, yes
- 19:15 < echarp> on parlement it already looks better I believe (but is slow right now, yes)
- 19:15 < echarp> html format?
- 19:15 < illegale> i suppose
- 19:16 < echarp> what kind of thing will be displayed in html?
- 19:16 < illegale> sumethig like espians have
- 19:16 < urgen> whatever you want
- 19:17 < urgen> example: http://open.neurostechnology.com/irclogs/neuros-2004-12-19.html
- 19:17 < illegale> Urgen, can you fix it with Echarp in a way we have it working?
- 19:17 < urgen> I do systems administration for a living
- 19:17 < echarp> woaw, cool
- 19:18 < echarp> I’m a programmer, mostly
- 19:18 < echarp> illegale: so, what is it they have? automatic links?
- 19:19 < illegale> one place you can see all logs to the last minute in html
- 19:20 < illegale> it is bit of better thing than we hae right now :)
- 19:20 < echarp> and the logs I mailed are different in which way?
- 19:20 < illegale> one per day delivery
- 19:20 < illegale> loosing it among other mails
- 19:21 < echarp> I’m telling you, I can very easily post it on another dedicated page
- 19:21 < illegale> on line?
- 19:21 < echarp> for example a page like: http://leparlement.org/irc
- 19:21 < echarp> on line yes
- 19:21 < illegale> ok
- 19:21 < illegale> that is what we will have for top politics :)
- 19:22 < echarp> I believe it will have that look:
- 19:22 < echarp> http://leparlement.org/ckGhYe9WWr2QXzabcNg4Tc
- 19:22 < illegale> why?
- 19:22 < echarp> (I’m going to improve the look of the url)
- 19:22 < echarp> why what?
- 19:22 < illegale> that look?
- 19:22 < illegale> leparelement.org/irc is nicer
- 19:23 < illegale> right
- 19:23 < echarp> well, it will be http://leparlement.org/irc, for all logs
- 19:23 < illegale> ok
- 19:23 < echarp> and eventually it will even be http://irc.leparlement.org
- 19:24 < echarp> individual daily logs will also be available
- 19:24 < illegale> yet, I suppose we should move it to toppolitics domain sometime in the future
- 19:24 < illegale> right?
- 19:24 < echarp> possibly yes
- 19:24 < illegale> ok
- 19:25 < echarp> already you can also reach the site on http://echarp.org
- 19:25 < echarp> ok, I’m going home right now
- 19:25 < echarp> late late late me!
- 19:25 < echarp> I’ll be bakc here in some 40 minutes
- 19:25 < illegale> bye!
- 19:25 < echarp> illegale: do have a look on what is nomic, most interesting!
- 19:25 < echarp> à tout de suite!
- 19:28 < illegale> I am waiting for you start the play
- 19:32 < illegale> Urgen, you share enthusiasm with echarP?
- 19:35 < illegale> fiatlex: help nomic
- 19:35 < fiatlex> illegale: Ask me about rule
, or ask me to accept [with ], amend with , annotate with , collect from , defeat [with ], details of , enact [with ], enroll, grant to , inventory - 19:35 < fiatlex> ..
, notes on , pending, propose , reject [with ], spend or text of . - 19:35 < illegale> fitalex:<1>
- 19:35 < illegale> fiatlex: <1>
- 19:42 < urgen> <— was making breakfast
- 19:45 < urgen> http://iconocla.st/nomic/rules.html
- 19:46 < urgen> this is where the set of rules in play are displayed
- 19:47
!beeli (illegale) [i=illegale@cmung3196.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement - 19:47 < urgen> http://iconocla.st/nomic/rules.html
- 19:47 < urgen> this is where the set of rules in play are displayed
- 19:49 < beeli> hey Urgen
- 19:49 < beeli> I was not here last several minutes
- 19:49 < urgen> sorry, I was making breakfast
- 19:49 < beeli> beeli=illegale
- 19:49 < urgen> I remember
- 19:49 < beeli> OK
- 19:50 < beeli> I asked what do you think about mnomic?
- 19:50 < beeli> Is it usable in any way
- 19:50 < beeli> ?
- 19:50 < beeli> I have some doubts due to its induction principle
- 19:50 < beeli> no deduction here
- 19:55 < urgen> what is an induction principle?
- 19:55 < urgen> I was sorting the bot commands to another file for easier reference
- 19:56 < beeli> deduction induction
- 19:56 < beeli> going from axioms on
- 19:57 < urgen> when does it come into play, where is it lacking / present, what significance are you expressing?
- 19:57 < beeli> if there is any flow in its base, it might be useless
- 19:57 < urgen> what is flow?
- 19:57 < beeli> flaw
- 19:57 < beeli> ?
- 19:57 < urgen> oh
- 19:58 < urgen> the purpose of this game is to help find things that should have been noticed but were not
- 19:58 < beeli> oh, ok
- 19:58 < urgen> a way to test your ideas on how “it” works
- 19:58 < beeli> in this model, right?
- 19:58 < beeli> t ospread its views
- 19:58 < beeli> i get it
- 19:58 < urgen> there isn’t actually any model
- 19:58 < beeli> basic rules create the model
- 19:58 < urgen> there’s a tiny bit of code to secretary things just a little in order to facilitate the test
- 19:59 < urgen> maybe that code will come into contention.. we’ll see
- 19:59 < urgen> more likely new better things will be discovered
- 20:01 < urgen> every sample of participation is vital.. even our conversation here, now
- 20:02 < beeli> hmh, I think that some things are actually waste of time
- 20:02 < urgen> in what way?
- 20:02 < beeli> not needed
- 20:02
!illegale [i=illegale@cmung3196.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] - 20:03 < beeli> taking time from thing that are needed
- 20:03 < urgen> this is a way to test your beliefs before seeing them fail, that’s a waste of time?
- 20:03 < urgen> a lot longer road the other way around
- 20:03 < beeli> hmh
- 20:04 < beeli> I am not constittion sort of a guy :)
- 20:04 < urgen> so you are welcome to propose the basis that fits you better
- 20:04 < urgen> I’m not trying to forward any camp
- 20:04 < beeli> camp?
- 20:04 < echarp> re
- 20:04 < urgen> collection of political agendas
- 20:05 < beeli> ah
- 20:05 < urgen> I’m just working from experience after watching too many treasured ideas fail painfully
- 20:05 < echarp> ideas are just that ideas
- 20:06 < beeli> i suppose it is due to too aerly close ups
- 20:06 < beeli> people do not feel the size of the world
- 20:06 < beeli> and no cotext to put n a measure
- 20:06 < echarp> me, I think this is because are rather easy to find
- 20:06 < beeli> so, trust their feelings
- 20:06 < echarp> but much harder to realise
- 20:06 < echarp> oups
- 20:06 < echarp> me, I think this is because “ideas” are rather easy to find
- 20:07 < beeli> yes
- 20:07 < beeli> there are pleny of good ideas
- 20:07 < beeli> really plenty of them
- 20:07 < echarp> and maybe even more! :)
- 20:07 < beeli> yet these ideas need to get into the context
- 20:07 < urgen> so you have a problem is this suggestion of process — one proposes, it is discussed, verification of understanding is reached, voted on, put into process, adhered to
- 20:07 < echarp> the “voted on” part could be expanded :)
- 20:08 < urgen> oops. s/is this/with this
- 20:08 < echarp> it could be a good start
- 20:08 < echarp> who are the players? are they players or just participants?
- 20:08 < echarp> is it a game?
- 20:08 < urgen> beeli is expressing a concern that this time spent on definitions would better be spent on action
- 20:08 < beeli> ok, i suppose this could help us with development of communication culture
- 20:08 < beeli> ohh….seems to me we got each other wrong
- 20:09 < urgen> I’d almost guarantee that missing definitions means failure
- 20:09 < echarp> I’m not sure he meant that that strongly
- 20:09 < beeli> Definitions are about finding a common frnt
- 20:09 < beeli> and finding common front s base for politicl sucfcess
- 20:09 < echarp> and languages do need common ground
- 20:09 < urgen> all definitions are a process that eventually arrives at agreement
- 20:09 < beeli> so, defiitions are needed in its start for sure
- 20:10 < urgen> we suggest, explore, and then either continue or discard
- 20:10 < beeli> i was thinking about constitution aproach, taking some idealisms to be a ground
- 20:10 < beeli> that leads to failure regularly
- 20:10 < urgen> I’m only focussed on now.
- 20:10 < beeli> absolutley yes
- 20:10 < urgen> constitution is a million miles in the future
- 20:11 < beeli> great!
- 20:11 < urgen> whether that happens or not is the test
- 20:11 < urgen> you want to prove it won’t happen, excellent
- 20:11 < urgen> wonderful
- 20:11 < urgen> I just want to see positive and constructive result
- 20:11 < beeli> Urgen, what are you trying to define in this very start?
- 20:11 < echarp> I might have to invite klaus, he is the our-constitution guy!
- 20:11 < beeli> is it commonf political front or?
- 20:11 < echarp> this meta system could interest him
- 20:12 * urgen defines term by term
- 20:12 < urgen> no fronts until you have enough words to spell one
- 20:12 < beeli> why?
- 20:12 < echarp> me I have troubles with “goal”, maybe because I do tend to appreciate games and find them of interest by themselves
- 20:12 < urgen> because otherwise they are nonsense
- 20:12 < beeli> how do you know you do not have enought words right now?
- 20:12 < beeli> maybe wit slight corections, yet..
- 20:12 < urgen> you haven’t even reached mutual understanding in a way that allows any communication at all
- 20:13 < urgen> I am totally certain there are enough words ‘floating around’ but I really need to see them recorded
- 20:13 < beeli> did you check up top politics?
- 20:13 < urgen> the record drives the system
- 20:13 < urgen> otherwise you get lots of who says they say wastes of time
- 20:14 < beeli> E, you are sort of an artist :)
- 20:14 < beeli> I mean, definition of the TOP?
- 20:14 < beeli> http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/TOP
- 20:15 < beeli> Ops. Ive gone too far
- 20:15 < echarp> an artist? :)
- 20:15 < urgen> my test to show true or not: without this basis of mutually agreed upon vocabulary TOP will hit its head and put itself out of the game
- 20:15 < echarp> that’s too much praise ;)
- 20:15 < beeli> something because of something stuff :)
- 20:15 < beeli> lol
- 20:15 < urgen> I do not see it having a single drop of formal basis, yet
- 20:16 < urgen> I would so love to be proven wrong
- 20:16 < beeli> what d you mean by formal basis?
- 20:16 < urgen> that is where I suggest we start… but I am willing to put that off until I get a chance to explain a little more
- 20:16 < urgen> formal basis is agreement itself
- 20:16 < beeli> ok!
- 20:17 < beeli> Eric is trying to do something lke that
- 20:17 < echarp> I agree to participate!
- 20:17 < urgen> I say this object is blue, you say this object is blue, we agree it is entered as a blue object
- 20:17 < urgen> yes, “I agree to participate” is a great example
- 20:17 < beeli> What agreements are you looking for?
- 20:17 < urgen> without the operative ‘agree’ we have zero
- 20:17 < beeli> Agreements about words?
- 20:17 < urgen> if you do not want to build a system based on agreement….
- 20:17 < beeli> and their meanings?
- 20:17 < urgen> yikes that sounds so painful
- 20:18 < urgen> agreement about agreement FIRST, that is formal basis
- 20:18 < echarp> :)
- 20:18 < beeli> yes
- 20:18 < urgen> if you don’t agree, you go play a different game, right?
- 20:18 < echarp> fiatlex: help nomic
- 20:18 < fiatlex> echarp: Ask me about rule
, or ask me to accept [with ], amend with , annotate with , collect from , defeat [with ], details of , enact [with ], enroll, grant to , inventory - 20:18 < fiatlex> ..
, notes on , pending, propose , reject [with ], spend or text of . - 20:18 < beeli> Can you show to us this agreement about agreement wirght here by example?
- 20:18 < beeli> I am playing with you
- 20:18 < echarp> fiatlex: propose I agree to participate
- 20:18 < fiatlex> echarp: Rule #2 added.
- 20:19 < urgen> meta form can be shown but only in demonstration
- 20:19 < urgen> you have to play to know
- 20:19 < urgen> :-)
- 20:19 < beeli> fiatlex: rule 1
- 20:19 < fiatlex> beeli: 1. winner is the last player in the game (defeated at 16:06 Jun 08; proposed by echarp at 12:39 Jun 08; accepted by echarp)
- 20:20 < urgen> so echarp decided to play, in order to know better, right?
- 20:20 < echarp> :)
- 20:20 < urgen> echarp proposed a rule.
- 20:20 < urgen> echarp passed the rule.
- 20:20 < echarp> in order to, well, I don’t know why yet :)
- 20:20 < urgen> echarp enacted the rule.
- 20:20 < echarp> fiatlex: rule 2
- 20:20 < fiatlex> echarp: 2. I agree to participate (proposed by echarp at 18:20 Jun 09)
- 20:20 < urgen> but there were three other ‘players’ that did not get a turn to vote..
- 20:20 < echarp> I proposed but I didn’t enact
- 20:20 < urgen> is this a genuine agreement or not?
- 20:20 < echarp> rule #1 was a test, to see what was possible or not
- 20:21 < urgen> you did enact, but you retracted it later.
- 20:21 < urgen> after some discussion
- 20:21 < echarp> well, this enaction was a mistake
- 20:21 < beeli> Uhhhhh….I got lost
- 20:21 < urgen> mistake we should have the tools available to not make mistakes
- 20:21 < echarp> beeli: upon arrival of the fiatlex bot, I tried it
- 20:21 < urgen> I think a lesson is a lesson and the record should show this progression
- 20:22 < echarp> I thougt enaction would require something else than merely asking it to enact a rule
- 20:22 < urgen> so later ppl can start and still understand why the current rule set is still in play
- 20:22 < urgen> your thought is valuable..
- 20:22 < urgen> what other associations do you have regarding ‘enact?’
- 20:23 < urgen> we should share
- 20:23 < echarp> to me enact is just to mean that the group accepts it as a rule
- 20:23 < urgen> lets let beeli have a try. perhaps a better lesson will show up
- 20:24 < beeli> I do not understand anything, I have to admint
- 20:24 < urgen> first step, seems to be proposing — tho I see no formal rule on the board suggesting such
- 20:24 < beeli> not entering the game ?
- 20:24 < beeli> :-)
- 20:24 < urgen> so beeli would attempt to get into the rule set a proposal that fits beeli’s sensibilities
- 20:24 < urgen> what does not entering the game mean?
- 20:25 < urgen> you have enrolled.
- 20:25 < beeli> not formally
- 20:25 < urgen> are you asking something about enrollment?
- 20:25 < echarp> do you agree to try nomic? :)
- 20:25 < beeli> right?
- 20:25 < beeli> I do agree to try nomic. Can I enter the game?
- 20:25 < urgen> well.. perhaps enrollment is not enough to qualify as formal entry.
- 20:25 < echarp> beeli: you are most welcome!
- 20:25 < echarp> :)
- 20:25 < beeli> I am in
- 20:25 < echarp> there could be rules upon entry, yet they are not there yet :)
- 20:26 < urgen> but you surely can’t play with this bot unless you are on the enrolling record
- 20:26 < beeli> Though, do not laugh at me.
- 20:26 < urgen> so they seem to be related
- 20:26 < beeli> Not programer
- 20:26 < echarp> beeli: I’m trying it for the first time too
- 20:26 < beeli> yetit seems to be logic u use more than i do :)
- 20:26 < echarp> usually nomic is a game with some rules already in play, here we start from a blank slate as an experiment
- 20:26 < beeli> urgen , how can i enter to enroling record?
- 20:27 < echarp> oh, you need to talk to the bot
- 20:27 < echarp> like fiatlex: help nomic
- 20:27 < beeli> i did it
- 20:27 < echarp> or fiatlex: enroll
- 20:27 < urgen> beeli, did you look at: http://iconocla.st/nomic/rules.html
- 20:27 < beeli> fiatlex:enroll
- 20:27 < fiatlex> beeli: Welcome to the game. Ask me about ‘pending’ rules, or ‘help Nomic’.
- 20:27 < echarp> that’s enough to enroll
- 20:27 < echarp> see!
- 20:27 < urgen> I see “illegale” there
- 20:27 < echarp> fiatlex: help nomic
- 20:27 < fiatlex> echarp: Ask me about rule
, or ask me to accept [with ], amend with , annotate with , collect from , defeat [with ], details of , enact [with ], enroll, grant to , inventory - 20:27 < fiatlex> ..
, notes on , pending, propose , reject [with ], spend or text of . - 20:27 < urgen> now we have both illegale and beeli there
- 20:27 < beeli> ohhhh. got to go :-(
- 20:28 < urgen> ok
- 20:28 < beeli> See you soon, I hope :=)
- 20:28 < urgen> np
- 20:28 < echarp> fiatlex: enroll
- 20:28 < fiatlex> echarp: You are already playing the game!
- 20:28 < echarp> ok, cu soon!
- 20:29 < urgen> looks like there is no option to delist?
- 20:29 < echarp> urgen: so, to you the goal would be something along the lines of “experimenting with definitions”? :)
- 20:29 < echarp> I guess there is not
- 20:29 < echarp> fiatlex: inventory players
- 20:29 < fiatlex> echarp: I am unsure which ‘players’ you’re referring to.
- 20:29 < echarp> fiatlex: inventory
- 20:30 < echarp> fiatlex: note on 1 this was a mistake, trying the bot to see what was allowed, well, everything is allowed :)
- 20:30 < echarp> no feedback?
- 20:30 < urgen> the object thing is in case someone gets a rule passed to allow points
- 20:30 < echarp> oh
- 20:30 < echarp> fiatlex: note on #1 this was a mistake, trying the bot to see what was allowed, well, everything is allowed :)
- 20:31 < echarp> fiatlex: notes on 1
- 20:31 < fiatlex> echarp: Nothing noted for rule #1.
- 20:31 < urgen> notes is to read back the existing notes
- 20:31 < echarp> fiatlex: annotate 1 with this was a mistake, trying the bot to see what was allowed, well, everything is allowed :)
- 20:31 < fiatlex> echarp: Added note to rule #1.
- 20:31 < echarp> yeap, to document I guess
- 20:31 < echarp> fiatlex: notes on 1
- 20:31 < fiatlex> echarp:
this was a mistake, trying the bot to see what was allowed, well, everything is allowed :) - 20:32 < urgen> fiatlex, pending
- 20:32 < fiatlex> urgen: 2. I agree to participate (proposed by echarp at 18:20 Jun 09)
- 20:32 < echarp> I think #2 can be an elegant basis, all those accepting it are then “in” the game
- 20:33 < urgen> that should be defined
- 20:33 < echarp> this sets the basis as a matter of agreement
- 20:33 < echarp> of course it should, I’m just proposing :)
- 20:33 < urgen> otherwise you can agree, and then later someone redefines what you agree to
- 20:33 < urgen> that’s kind of hard, we have a record of you agreeing but you didn’t agree to its current form
- 20:33 < urgen> what to do?
- 20:34 < echarp> current form?
- 20:34 < echarp> a record of that?
- 20:34 < urgen> you agree to participate
- 20:35 < urgen> somehow, rule #11 says participation requires that you send $500 to my paypal account
- 20:35 < urgen> well… you agreed didn’t you?
- 20:35 < urgen> of course maybe rule 11 wouldn’t be passed because it is too obvious of an attempt
- 20:36 < urgen> but people can be sneaky
- 20:36 < urgen> so you may end up agreeing to something you didn’t
- 20:36 < urgen> sooooo… we should put “participate” in the definitions section
- 20:36 < urgen> to avoid possible confusion and lock that initial agreement only to that case
- 20:36 < urgen> etc.
- 20:36 < echarp> participation means agreement to everything?
- 20:37 < urgen> for me, no, but I’d still like it to be spelled out a little
- 20:37 < echarp> hummm, we can of course define it
- 20:37 < urgen> participation.. is currently nebulous
- 20:37 < urgen> we have identified it as a component
- 20:37 < urgen> to participate..
- 20:38 < urgen> give you right to propose, to vote, to challenge
- 20:38 < echarp> not even that
- 20:38 < echarp> much lower than that
- 20:38 < urgen> :-)
- 20:38 < echarp> just means you are “in” there, that you made a move
- 20:38 < echarp> it is a pronoun
- 20:39 < echarp> a verb
- 20:39 < urgen> ok
- 20:39 < echarp> another verb in infinitive form
- 20:39 < urgen> a state of record
- 20:39 < echarp> yeap
- 20:39 < urgen> shows you to be a current participant
- 20:39 < urgen> and that particpation depends on your further agreement to this state
- 20:39 < urgen> if you disagree it no longer stands
- 20:39 < echarp> yeap
- 20:40 < echarp> it just means you are a player (if it becomes a game)
- 20:40 < echarp> that you are here
- 20:40 < echarp> maybe it supercede “enroll”
- 20:40 < urgen> maybe not here, but available
- 20:40
!beeli [i=illegale@cmung3196.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)] - 20:40 < echarp> available?
- 20:40 < urgen> I hang out on channel
- 20:41 < urgen> if roll call were by visual it would appear that I was here but I am away at the store buying root beer
- 20:41 < urgen> if the votes are limited by time, I may forfeit
- 20:41 < urgen> :-)
- 20:41 < echarp> I don’t get it
- 20:41 < echarp> you are speaking about virtual presence of your avatar?
- 20:41 < urgen> we need to define the venue
- 20:42 < urgen> what is “here?”
- 20:42 < urgen> :-)
- 20:42 < urgen> I say participation seems to require that one have access to the internet, can type, and can act on events that show up in irc
- 20:43 < urgen> at least, “here”, at least at this moment
- 20:43 < urgen> maybe that becomes unfair in the future and postcards have to be sent
- 20:43 < urgen> who knows
- 20:43 < echarp> I think it can be implicit
- 20:43 < echarp> to play there are conditions
- 20:44 < urgen> I don’t :-) and I think that is part of what illegale suggested as ‘wastes of time’
- 20:44 < echarp> to me what matters is: what happens if/when conditions are not met
- 20:44 < urgen> to play there are conditions but without defining them play ends quickly
- 20:44 < urgen> maybe quickly is ok. I’m not opposed to just a quick short test
- 20:44 < echarp> are you speaking of conditions implicit into the fact the person is here?
- 20:45 < urgen> yes
- 20:45 < echarp> you think the game can not be played if the people can not play anymore?
- 20:45 < urgen> what happens with virtual consensus is that we have to encorporate the spherical nature of the globe and partial coverage of sunshine
- 20:46 < urgen> if you don’t allow for time zones, then half the world is removed from voting
- 20:46 < urgen> so ‘here’ is relative
- 20:47 < urgen> we define voting to be open for … one day? two days?
- 20:47 < echarp> this is something else I believe
- 20:47 < echarp> the voting process
- 20:47 < urgen> only after roll call and that defines quorum
- 20:47 < echarp> quorum is one way yes
- 20:47 < urgen> I am just trying to future proof a little
- 20:47 < echarp> well, one brick
- 20:48 < urgen> the ‘formal basis’ should stand no matter what or we don’t have a case to start
- 20:48 < echarp> you mean formal basis, as in “process”?
- 20:48 < urgen> formal basis is a process, but that’s not obvious initially
- 20:48 < urgen> takes a running start to appreciate that
- 20:49 < echarp> formal basis is not a concept I am familiar with
- 20:49 < urgen> I invented it from past experience an analysis of why online democracies fail
- 20:49 < urgen> s/an/and
- 20:49 < echarp> and they fail because?
- 20:50 < urgen> because people get bored, don’t understand, can see the advantage, don’t enjoy the complexity….
- 20:50 < urgen> s/can/can’t
- 20:50 < echarp> well, it is a matter of “goals” I believe
- 20:50 < urgen> agendas seem to be the number one enemy
- 20:50 < urgen> ppl want to spike input to twist the result
- 20:51 < urgen> agendas should be allowed, if you take them away people leave
- 20:51 < urgen> so the strength of the system must be capable of allowing differing view
- 20:51 < urgen> neutral
- 20:52 < echarp> agenda is necessary I believe
- 20:52 < echarp> same here with nomic
- 20:52 < urgen> so,, agreement becomes relative
- 20:52 < echarp> everything is
- 20:52 < urgen> that means it is a process
- 20:52 < urgen> special case use only
- 20:53 < urgen> in this case, agreement will be defined by:
- -- - - 20:53 < urgen> and you used the word participate
- 20:53 < echarp> by voting yes
- 20:53 < urgen> participation defines agreement
- 20:53 < echarp> you agree if you vote yes
- 20:53 < urgen> now we define participation and thus are participating
- 20:54 < urgen> voting is implicit, so far, but I think we should acknowledge this process of defining particpation as participation
- 20:54 < echarp> well, is nomic still on the plate or not? :)
- 20:54 < urgen> fiatlex does not know classic nomic
- 20:54 < echarp> if it is, then some nomic elements are here, like “rules”, “enact”, “reject”
- 20:55 < urgen> it’s just a rule process secretary
- 20:55 < echarp> “players”
- 20:55 < echarp> yeap, yet it does use concepts
- 20:55 < urgen> I don’t really want to play classic nomic because it dies quickly
- 20:55 < echarp> quickly as in? a few hours?
- 20:56 < urgen> a few days. there are archives
- 20:56 < echarp> and you think a good time frame is?
- 20:56 < urgen> sometimes months
- 20:56 < urgen> for me, good, would be always keeping our promises
- 20:56 < urgen> no end
- 20:57 < urgen> a definition is a type of promise
- 20:57 < echarp> durability :)
- 20:57 < echarp> it is a goal, an agenda :)
- 20:57 < urgen> we promise to use this certain term in this certain way for the sake of mutual benefit
- 20:57 < echarp> what about changing one’s mind?
- 20:57 < urgen> so all these rules are kinds of promises
- 20:58 < urgen> so. I agree to participate is to promise to continue to agree
- 20:58 < urgen> if you change your mind. we find that there are fatal and non fatal diagreements
- 20:58 < urgen> the non fatal ones can be worked out over time, the fatal ones means a new game starts with a different set of participants
- 20:59 < echarp> are there basic concepts we can not do without? the bot concepts for example?
- 20:59 < urgen> I think so, but have never had anyone play long enough to find out
- 20:59 < urgen> as I said it is a process and a process of one person just doesn’t work
- 20:59 < echarp> what kind of concepts do you have in mind?
- 20:59 < urgen> :-)
- 20:59 * echarp disagree, it works perfectly! :)
- 21:00 < echarp> but it’s not of much interest ;)
- 21:00 < urgen> but that gets lonely
- 21:00 < echarp> :)
- 21:00 < urgen> fun is no fun if you can’t share it
- 21:00 < echarp> ahah, here you are, a goal! :)
- 21:00 < urgen> participation suggests more than one player
- 21:01 < urgen> contiued agreement is a noble goal
- 21:01 < urgen> s/contiued/continued
- 21:01 < echarp> hummmm
- 21:01 < urgen> by keyboard batteries are running low
- 21:01 < urgen> :P
- 21:01 < urgen> my
- 21:01 < echarp> what is your goal in life? if there is any you can point to
- 21:01 < echarp> :)
- 21:02 < urgen> continued agreement is a goal I also hold in life
- 21:02 < echarp> I see
- 21:02 < echarp> me it’s more like “happiness”, “pleasure”
- 21:02 < echarp> individual one for a start, which could then spread
- 21:02 < urgen> I can’t define eithr of those
- 21:02 < echarp> happiness is not to be defined strictly, it is relative “in essence”
- 21:03 < echarp> my definition of happiness (see see)
- 21:03 < echarp> happiness: one’s goal in life
- 21:03 < echarp> one’s goal in life: happiness
- 21:03 < echarp> tautology
- 21:03 < echarp> an equation
- 21:03 < echarp> but it contains information
- 21:03 < echarp> “one’s” “goal”
- 21:04 < urgen> so I’ve equated uninterruptable happiness with keeping one’s promises
- 21:04 < echarp> it’s open to “one’s” definition :)
- 21:04 < urgen> you do good and you get good
- 21:04 < urgen> and I’m not interested in the ephemeral versions of happiness
- 21:05 < urgen> except that it is totally possible for me to not keep a promise
- 21:05 < echarp> you can replace happiness with pleasure, the hedonistic kind
- 21:05 < urgen> please is so way fleeting that I don’t even rate it
- 21:05 < urgen> pleasure
- 21:05 < echarp> you have hedonism, or, eudemonism
- 21:05 < echarp> two worthy goals, cousins of sorts
- 21:05 < urgen> worthy until it runs out
- 21:06 < echarp> hedonist will calculate it
- 21:06 < echarp> they calculate pleasure
- 21:06 < echarp> to maximise it
- 21:06 < urgen> or are just simply out of control
- 21:06 < urgen> :-)
- 21:06 < echarp> that’s the epicurian pigs imagery
- 21:06 < urgen> driven by habit
- 21:07 < urgen> no calculation possible other than what that addiction demands
- 21:07 < urgen> that’s not very ‘free’
- 21:07 < echarp> addiction and pleasure? you combine the 2?
- 21:07 < urgen> happens because we are human
- 21:07 < urgen> bio-bias
- 21:08 < echarp> and pleasure would then be? bad?
- 21:08 < urgen> coke is bad
- 21:08 < urgen> coke makes pleasure
- 21:08 < urgen> if pleasure were my goal more coke would be good
- 21:08 < urgen> coke would destroy the ability to feel pleasure over time
- 21:08 < echarp> ohlalala, no
- 21:08 < urgen> then what?
- 21:08 < urgen> that’s just silly
- 21:08 < echarp> if pleasure is your goal, then coke might be a mean to it
- 21:09 < echarp> yet you are intelligent, if pleasure is your goal you will probably try to maximise it
- 21:09 < echarp> then coke might not be that great a mean
- 21:09 < urgen> so you want to propose a more rarified, custom, special case use of ‘pleasure’
- 21:09 < urgen> then you are again talking essence
- 21:09 < urgen> and losing the ability to make a distinction
- 21:09 < urgen> back to promise
- 21:09 < echarp> nope, pleasure does not contradict thinking
- 21:10 < echarp> thinking is not the opposition of pleasure
- 21:10 < urgen> essence doesn’t contradict thinking eithr
- 21:10 < urgen> I’m way so not anti thought
- 21:10 < urgen> or I wouldn’t even be here
- 21:10 < echarp> hu?
- 21:10 < echarp> ok, I may get it
- 21:10 < urgen> why, where, did thinking come into play?
- 21:11 < echarp> because I sensed you opposed thinking and pleasure
- 21:11 < echarp> and that this opposition lead you to the coke thing
- 21:11 < echarp> that this opposition lead you to think that all hedonists would seek drugs
- 21:11 < echarp> yet it is far from the truth
- 21:11 < echarp> the best proof? epicure himself! :)
- 21:11 < echarp> he was an ascete
- 21:12 < echarp> (I don’t know if ascete is a proper english word)
- 21:13 < urgen> neutral can not make judgement by definition
- 21:13 < echarp> I’m going to take some food
- 21:13 < echarp> you stay around?
- 21:14 < urgen> if the playing field is to be level (fair) then even a proposed hedonism is allowed but not sponsored
- 21:14 < echarp> I didn’t understant that “neutral” thing
- 21:14 < echarp> oh, ok
- 21:14 < urgen> the game forwards no front
- 21:14 < urgen> equal participation
- 21:14 < echarp> another implicit rule? ;)
- 21:14 < urgen> the game is one of discovering implicit and making them explicit
- 21:15 < urgen> if you aren’t finding hidden beliefs then we aren’t playing
- 21:15 < urgen> :-)
- 21:15 < echarp> again, we should possibly start with the very game concepts that this bot architects
- 21:15 < urgen> maybe
- 21:15 < urgen> I’m willing to try
- 21:15 < echarp> our use of this bot would mean that its internal rules will architect our actions and thoughts
- 21:15 < urgen> the bot is easy enough to change if required
- 21:16 < echarp> I’m sure
- 21:16 < echarp> yet its actual state embodies rules
- 21:16 < urgen> in a way
- 21:16 < echarp> I believe there is a paper about it, “laws by architecture” or something
- 21:16 < urgen> right
- 21:17 < echarp> so, what is the bottom of the tower we may try to build? :)
- 21:17 < echarp> how far underground? :)
- 21:17 < urgen> “process” or “service”
- 21:17 < echarp> do we dig in the code to expurge its assumptions? :)
- 21:18 < urgen> when I learn a new card game, there is always an assumed “the first one doesn’t count”
- 21:18 < echarp> same here with rule #1 ;-D !
- 21:18 < urgen> that is because the first pass is to uncover the structure of play
- 21:18 < echarp> yeap, true
- 21:18 < echarp> and this bot is structure
- 21:19 < echarp> at least it is easy to come to agreements on what is its structure, because it is rather “objective”
- 21:19 < urgen> I am willing to temporarily adopt this structure to get a better idea at what may be better
- 21:19 < echarp> a first pass?
- 21:19 < urgen> or have we already done that?
- 21:19 < echarp> I do not know
- 21:19 < urgen> :-) Schuyler reset the previous game we played on a different channel
- 21:20 < urgen> that record is available for inspiration
- 21:20 < echarp> what about a process that allow everybody to try it as a “first run”? :)
- 21:20 < urgen> http://iconocla.st/nomic/hashbots.html
- 21:20 < urgen> we can have a sandbox game and a real game
- 21:21 < echarp> it’s just a game, it is a sandbox ;)
- 21:21 < echarp> I mean, we can and will certainly destroy/discard it at some poit
- 21:21 < echarp> point
- 21:21 < echarp> everything does have to die
- 21:22 < echarp> ok, you give me 10 minutes?
- 22:14 < echarp> re urgen
- 22:14 < echarp> still around?
- 22:15 < urgen> ya
- 22:15 < echarp> what are your thoughts about this nomic game we are discussing about?
- 22:16 < urgen> that things are going well?
- 22:16 < urgen> I asked buridan, again, but he says no., I’m trying to talk to kristallpirat because he has semanticized the complete german legal system
- 22:17 < urgen> to create a subject object result library for every case
- 22:17 < urgen> a way to research the body of law
- 22:18 < echarp> huge thing
- 22:18 < echarp> buridan is interested in civics but not such a game?
- 22:18 < urgen> a required stepping stone for any chance of online governance to has a chance
- 22:18 < urgen> to have a hope
- 22:18 < urgen> :-P
- 22:19 < urgen> buridan thinks only children play here
- 22:19 < urgen> at least that is my interpretation
- 22:19 < echarp> “here” as in this channel?
- 22:19 < urgen> and TOP
- 22:19 < echarp> or this game?
- 22:19 < urgen> naive comes to mind
- 22:19 < urgen> the whole effort
- 22:19 < urgen> any online governance
- 22:20 < urgen> not just TOP
- 22:20 < echarp> oh, ok, that’s a pretty general matter then
- 22:20 < urgen> so it is my interest to mature some of this naive
- 22:20 < urgen> otherwise we have endles bickering with no result
- 22:20 < echarp> me I’m persuaded internet in general, canBe/is the memetic sphere our minds can live in
- 22:21 < echarp> and in this noosphere, we can design anything, including things our bodies can apply irl
- 22:21 < echarp> laws could be decided upon here, and applied irl
- 22:22 < echarp> what do you think?
- 22:22 < urgen> agreement is agreement
- 22:22 < urgen> I’m positive this could result in forming influence
- 22:23 < urgen> real life influence
- 22:23 < urgen> but only if it is taken seriously step by step
- 22:23 < urgen> no overarching dream platforms
- 22:23 < urgen> that never works
- 22:23 < urgen> learn by test
- 22:24 < echarp> learn by small experiments, yes, definitely
- 22:24 < echarp> I’m a rather anarchist/liberal kind of hybrid
- 22:24 < echarp> I believe we could/can invent things that can apply to groups of individuals
- 22:24 < echarp> well, that groups of individuals can choose to apply :)
- 22:25 < urgen> me too, and also that it probably will happen anyway so we should be working in that direction now
- 22:25 < echarp> I agree that it will happen, well, probably happen
- 22:25 < urgen> it seems natural that state based governments slowly evolve to NGO type governances
- 22:25 < echarp> urgen: you know what panarchy is?
- 22:26 < urgen> not in my dictionary..
- 22:27 < echarp> it is in wikipedia
- 22:27 < echarp> a weird concept, but which I find interesting
- 22:27 < echarp> needs to be refined
- 22:27 < echarp> (a huge need)
- 22:30 < urgen> so you haven’t read Snow Crash, by Neal Stephenson?
- 22:30 < urgen> multiple virtual nations of cyberspace
- 22:30 < echarp> I have
- 22:30 < urgen> ok
- 22:30 < echarp> I’m a huge SF guy :)
- 22:30 < urgen> me too
- 22:31 < urgen> I like vernor vinge a lot
- 22:31 < echarp> but iirc he goes beyond mere virtual nations
- 22:31 < echarp> vernor vinge is cool
- 22:31 < echarp> but the singularity is stupid
- 22:31 < urgen> ya it’s ok, beyond mere virtual nations
- 22:31 < urgen> :-) the singularity makes sense, but not in the way it has been picked up in popularity
- 22:31 < echarp> he pictures this world as a rather violent place, I disagree on that analysis
- 22:32 < echarp> makes sense in what ways then?
- 22:32 < urgen> I don’t remember any necessary violence..
- 22:32 < urgen> vinge has that thing.. gravity with an intelligence vector
- 22:32 < echarp> I remember a sort of background of violence
- 22:32 < urgen> the more dense the space the slower intelligence is
- 22:32 < urgen> technolgy needs so much more help
- 22:33 < echarp> yeap, I remember that, but I prefered the multiple bodies with one personality thing :)
- 22:33 < urgen> the less, the further on the ‘outside’ technology becomes sentient
- 22:33 < urgen> somewhere in the middle.. singularity
- 22:33 < echarp> I just think the whole idea of a runaway process toward god is silly and ungrounded
- 22:33 < urgen> the popular things about doubling of speed etc. is just a whimpy extension of a larger theory
- 22:33 < echarp> it is yes
- 22:34 < echarp> yet they use it as a kind of “proof”
- 22:34 < urgen> no way techno sentience requires a god tho
- 22:34 < echarp> me, I consider intelligence has already evolved, that it will carry on this process
- 22:34 < echarp> it does not “require”, but a singularity is a god of sorts
- 22:34 < urgen> I think you could find intelligence in any place the supporting conditions are found
- 22:35 < urgen> singularity is not any sort of god to me…
- 22:35 < urgen> it is a moment of change just like any other
- 22:35 < urgen> our difficulty stems from a lack of complex-friendly terminology
- 22:35 < echarp> well, even in vinge a singularity is a sort of god
- 22:35 < urgen> not all vinge
- 22:35 < urgen> some can be seen like that
- 22:35 < echarp> difficulty to, to understand?
- 22:36 < urgen> difficulty to recognize a frame of reference
- 22:36 < urgen> we have silly words like ‘god’ get in the way
- 22:36 < urgen> :-)
- 22:37 < echarp> anyway, to me, the whole thing is spurious, it’s a runaway process we don’t yet have to obtain a result we don’t really know (self improving intelligence)
- 22:37 < urgen> mistakes of logical typing.. taking ultimate for relative and relative for ultimate
- 22:37 < urgen> I have no problem with your objection
- 22:37 < echarp> a god is just a word of course
- 22:37 < echarp> but a singularity is a god!
- 22:38 < echarp> plus, it seems some are turning it all into a cult
- 22:38 < echarp> I hanged with extropians for a while, and transhumanists
- 22:38 < urgen> trans humanists
- 22:38 < urgen> they are really really silly :-)
- 22:38 < echarp> some do consider the singularity as a goal
- 22:38 < urgen> even if their premise might actually be possible
- 22:38 < echarp> transhumanism does appeal to me :)
- 22:38 < urgen> they surely haven’t grappled with the complexity of the issues
- 22:39 < urgen> most of the transhuman schools I’ve seen rely on the singularity to get there
- 22:39 < urgen> I say.. hey, if it is true, it is already true, why make it harder than necessary?
- 22:39 < echarp> I prefer their research into another arena: cyborgs! :)
- 22:40 < echarp> cyborgs are coooool :)
- 22:40 < urgen> I see nomic bot as a type of assistive device when it finally evolves
- 22:40 < echarp> it is yes
- 22:41 < echarp> but it’s like pen and paper, it imposes through its existence
- 22:41 < echarp> its use
- 22:41 < urgen> for now, at least
- 22:41 < urgen> we have to start with a lot of our own bias to get anywhere
- 22:41 < urgen> that it the greatest of limitations
- 22:42 < urgen> learning to deal with our own unchallenged assumptions
- 22:42 < echarp> yeap, already we have gone through some ground
- 22:42 < echarp> to lay some more foundations, let me say “everything can be challenged, this sentence included” :)
- 22:43 < urgen> the continuity of agreement seems to require that
- 22:44 < urgen> we need a grievance loop
- 22:44 < urgen> a way to challenge
- 22:44 < urgen> a way to test
- 22:44 < urgen> a way to call into question or reassessment
- 22:44 < echarp> maybe all of the rules can be changed all the time
- 22:44 < urgen> a polite way to disagree
- 22:45 < echarp> changed => reject/accept
- 22:45 < urgen> that’s probably true but the wording has to be careful
- 22:46 < echarp> yeap
- 22:46 < echarp> and it might lead to strange consequences
- 22:46 < urgen> as long as you are continuing to follow existing agreement you can approach any redress
- 22:46 < echarp> but changing rules would change promises, wouldn’t it?
- 22:46 < urgen> but, another phenomenon that happens is this sort of conversation we have now
- 22:46 < urgen> an ‘above the board’ type play
- 22:46 < urgen> not really ‘formally’ recorded
- 22:47 < urgen> but with intention to set it into some sort of formal play
- 22:47 < urgen> or not :-)
- 22:47 < urgen> harmony seems to have its own set of rules
- 22:48 < echarp> :)
- 22:48 < echarp> plus we are only 2, any new player might change everything
- 22:48 < echarp> 2 + 1 would be a 50% increase
- 22:48 < echarp> huge!!!
- 22:49 < urgen> yes
- 22:49 < urgen> I had a three player minimum rule, for a while
- 22:49 < urgen> one for tie breaker
- 22:49 < urgen> brb
- 22:50 < echarp> ok
- 22:56 < urgen> back
- 22:58 < echarp> well, it does seem like we are not just designing a game you know
- 22:59 < urgen> or that real life is actually a game J-)
- 22:59 < urgen> oops. ;-)
- 23:01 < urgen> I don’t need to formalize that distinction and even enjoy blurring it
- 23:01 < urgen> lots of games impact real life
- 23:01 < echarp> of course
- 23:02 < echarp> and life can be seen as a game, of course
- 23:02 < urgen> if the rules here begin to have consequences in real life ( are binding ) what’s the difference?
- 23:02 < urgen> which is a good point… the difference
- 23:03 < echarp> a game having large consequences outside of itself might not be a game anymore
- 23:03 < echarp> a game supposedly is something of a sandbox :)
- 23:03 < echarp> you can play, and try again if you fail
- 23:03 < echarp> which is why kids love and use games
- 23:04 < urgen> we can explore eminent domain, and legitimacy of government
- 23:05 < echarp> of course
- 23:05 < echarp> exploration and games cohabit in the same useful spaces :)
- 23:06 < urgen> I don’t know why it is usually rushed forward so quickly… but this idea of legitimacy by popular support
- 23:06 < urgen> a lot of people vote yes on the form of government
- 23:07 < urgen> that then allows the government proxy to make decisions on behalf of the members
- 23:07
!kristallpirat (kristall) [n=kristall@62.206.114.179] has joined #parlement - 23:07 < kristallpirat> hey urgen
- 23:07 < urgen> hi
- 23:07 < echarp> hello kristallpirat
- 23:07 < urgen> the ability for proxy to have legitimacy was based on an initial agreement
- 23:07 < urgen> it is the same with this game, no?
- 23:08 < kristallpirat> heya echarp
- 23:08 < echarp> I don’t know, proxy exists in the game?
- 23:08 < urgen> a game based on the continuity of agreement is a governance
- 23:08 < echarp> yeap, but what about proxy?
- 23:08 < urgen> proxy seems to be another goal
- 23:08 < echarp> kristallpirat: interested in joining a game of nomic?
- 23:08 < urgen> a way to gather the strength of individuals to form a larger influence
- 23:08 < kristallpirat> what is nomic?
- 23:09 < echarp> a game of game
- 23:09 < urgen> if there were one thousand participants and the rule that they all donate a dollar was passed
- 23:09 < echarp> which looks very much like people designing politics
- 23:09
!illegale (irc.freenode.net) [n=illegale@cmung289.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement - 23:09 < urgen> all participants would then donate a dollar., now we have to have a group based proxy established to use that thousand dollars to some mutual end
- 23:10 < illegale> bussiness I see :)
- 23:10 < echarp> proxy to do what?
- 23:10 < urgen> do whatever the rules say to do
- 23:10 < echarp> an employee for example?
- 23:10 < kristallpirat> I am still unsure about what you are trying to tell me
- 23:10 < urgen> kristallpirat: http://iconocla.st/nomic/suber.htm#initial%20set
- 23:11 < echarp> kristallpirat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic
- 23:11 < echarp> kristallpirat: there is a bot on this channel, which we hope to use as a record keeper
- 23:11 < urgen> but we have a mini sandbox nomic bot here
- 23:11 < echarp> and all players in the game can design the rules of a game they play
- 23:11 < echarp> but originally I am here for http://leparlement.org
- 23:12 < urgen> ;-
- 23:12 < echarp> illegale is here for a project promoting transparency, http://leparlement.org/top-politics
- 23:12 < echarp> many too many urls! :)
- 23:13 < urgen> one can review the code of the bot in the spirit of transparency
- 23:13 < urgen> make sure no one is being given an unfair advantage
- 23:15 < kristallpirat> mmm sounds intressting but I am already lacking tooo much lifetime (at least currently)….
- 23:16 < urgen> understood
- 23:16 < urgen> I just felt that this was exploring a context your work fits into down the road
- 23:16 < echarp> kristallpirat: what are you working on currently?
- 23:17 < kristallpirat> making a german dict
- 23:17 < urgen> maybe review the german law library thing so ppl understand the relation
- 23:17 < echarp> oh yeah, a compilation, this is big
- 23:17 < echarp> urgen told me about you earlier
- 23:17 < kristallpirat> for using it for tagging NLP-
- 23:18 < kristallpirat> information to legal textes
- 23:18 < echarp> kristallpirat: the game of nomic we envision is, well could be, more than a simple game
- 23:18 < echarp> NLP as neuro linguistic programming???
- 23:18 < urgen> when nomic bot evolves to gaining NLP we’ll really be somewhere
- 23:18 < urgen> natural language
- 23:18 < kristallpirat> no as “natural language processing”
- 23:18 < echarp> lol, ok
- 23:19 < urgen> recognizing the context of word use
- 23:19 < echarp> too many acronyms :)
- 23:19 < urgen> a preliminary way to measure intent
- 23:19 < echarp> I don’t consider the bot important
- 23:19 < echarp> I think the set of rules could be important
- 23:19 < kristallpirat> basicly sorting words in the “correct” wordclass
- 23:19 < kristallpirat> brb
- 23:19 < illegale> correct for whom?
- 23:20 < urgen> I think the auotmation of the process to arrive at an assistive device to be as critical as the $100 laptops distributed to close the digital divide
- 23:20 < urgen> we have too many people with no representation to not allow the bot a role
- 23:20 < illegale> how is going on?
- 23:20 < urgen> correct for the original author
- 23:21 < urgen> so you don’t think I meant something different than I did
- 23:21 < illegale> with the game?
- 23:21 < echarp> illegale: discussions
- 23:21 < urgen> the game is still not here nor there
- 23:22 < urgen> but an appreciation for potential is being shared
- 23:22 < illegale> btw, what is the product of it?
- 23:22 < urgen> product of what?
- 23:22 < illegale> the game?
- 23:22 < illegale> good fun, what else?
- 23:22 < echarp> if it is just a game, it does not need to produce anything “outside” of it
- 23:23 < urgen> current discussion has me thinking the product is soething like the continuity of agreement
- 23:23 < echarp> yet is has the potential to become a rule set with real world implications
- 23:23 < urgen> participation is the product
- 23:23 < echarp> urgen: it’s you coming to that conclusion ;)
- 23:23 < urgen> we all have our own conclusions
- 23:23 < echarp> willing participation could be very important
- 23:23 < urgen> that’s part of the game
- 23:23 < echarp> yeap :)
- 23:23 < urgen> you want a different product go for it
- 23:23 < echarp> durability could be a criteria for accomplishment
- 23:23 < illegale> what is the current state?
- 23:24 < urgen> current state is under review
- 23:24 < echarp> illegale: we’ve discussed and that’s all
- 23:24 < echarp> me I also think there need to be agenda, goals
- 23:24 < urgen> I say.. maybe we need at least three players for minimum threshhold, that way any tie votes can be broken
- 23:24 < illegale> willing to see second step
- 23:25 < echarp> illegale: I proposed a rule
- 23:25 < echarp> fiatlex: rule 2
- 23:25 < fiatlex> echarp: 2. I agree to participate (proposed by echarp at 18:20 Jun 09)
- 23:25 < echarp> the basis of that rule is that anybody voting yes is a player
- 23:25 < echarp> all others are not players
- 23:26 < illegale> Is there any tutorial for Fiatlex?
- 23:26 < urgen> and I’m so nearly willing to accept that rule
- 23:26 < echarp> illegale: maybe it is not needed
- 23:26 < echarp> urgen: :)
- 23:26 < urgen> the tutorial is something we write ourselves during play
- 23:26 < echarp> fiatlex: help nomic
- 23:26 < fiatlex> echarp: Ask me about rule
, or ask me to accept [with ], amend with , annotate with , collect from , defeat [with ], details of , enact [with ], enroll, grant to , inventory - 23:26 < fiatlex> ..
, notes on , pending, propose , reject [with ], spend or text of . - 23:26 < urgen> maybe copy paste those commands into a list
- 23:26 < illegale> fitalex: accept 2
- 23:26 < urgen> and sort in a way that they begin to make sense
- 23:26 < kristallpirat> b, echarp heard of N- R- n O-grammars?
- 23:26 < illegale> fiatlex: accept 2
- 23:26 < fiatlex> illegale: Rule #2 accepted.
- 23:27 < urgen> fiatlex, accept 2
- 23:27 < fiatlex> urgen: Rule #2 accepted.
- 23:27 < urgen> this rule doesn’t seem to be required to be ‘enacted’
- 23:27 < echarp> kristallpirat: what is that?
- 23:27 < urgen> it seems to be a one on one rule
- 23:27 < illegale> What does it need to happened for rule to be accepted in this time?
- 23:28 < urgen> illegale now see: http://iconocla.st/nomic/rules.html
- 23:28 < echarp> illegale: technically, nothing is really required, the bot being very lax
- 23:28 < kristallpirat> N-grammars describe the world in prosa like english, german, …
- 23:28 < echarp> kristallpirat: any wikipedia page?
- 23:28 < kristallpirat> R-ga
- 23:28 < urgen> the requirements come from play
- 23:28 < echarp> does it manage inconsistencies?
- 23:29 < kristallpirat> O-grammars are objectorientiated
- 23:29 < echarp> interesting
- 23:29 < kristallpirat> R-grammars are facts of case orientiated
- 23:30 < kristallpirat> “rational” grammars
- 23:30 < echarp> where are these initials coming from?
- 23:30 < echarp> “R-ga” ??
- 23:31 < illegale> Urgen, I see you have some knowledge of terminology
- 23:31 < urgen> fiatlex: propose Rule #2 will be set to ‘enacted’ when three or more ‘accepted’ votes are recieved
- 23:31 < fiatlex> urgen: Rule #3 added.
- 23:31 < illegale> you mentioned we are not speaking the same language, so we can not gather around anythiing while that is so
- 23:32 < urgen> some things can be found to be the same
- 23:32 < urgen> but only by, at least, asking for verification
- 23:32 < illegale> so, what is the point we can go further from definitions?
- 23:32 < kristallpirat> www.innotivum.de/GIAK%20Artikel%2095.pdf
- 23:32 < echarp> your paper?
- 23:32 < kristallpirat> R-ga is spam
- 23:32 < kristallpirat> no
- 23:33 < kristallpirat> page 3
- 23:33 < kristallpirat> diagram
- 23:33 < kristallpirat> I will translate any german word you need
- 23:34 * echarp dies from memories of german courses!
- 23:34 < echarp> 99 luft ballon was the best though! ;)
- 23:35 < urgen> fiatlex: propose To Participate as mentioned in Rule #2 means the ongoing refinement of Participation by proposing and enacting further rules and starts when Rule #2 is enacted.
- 23:35 < fiatlex> urgen: Rule #4 added.
- 23:35 < kristallpirat> N- like “natural”
- 23:35 < kristallpirat> O- like OO
- 23:35 < urgen> fiatlex: pending
- 23:36 < fiatlex> urgen: 3. Rule #2 will be set to ‘enacted’ when three or more ‘accepted’ votes are recieved (proposed by urgen at 21:32 Jun 09)
- 23:36 < kristallpirat> R- like “rational”
- 23:36 < echarp> fiatlex: accept 3
- 23:36 < fiatlex> echarp: Rule #3 accepted.
- 23:36 < echarp> it’s going fast
- 23:36 < illegale> Kristall pirat, how do you group simmilar meanings?
- 23:36 < echarp> rule #4 seems rather complex to me
- 23:37 < echarp> kristallpirat: any english or french article?
- 23:37 < illegale> fiatlex: accept 3
- 23:37 < fiatlex> illegale: Rule #3 accepted.
- 23:37 < kristallpirat> each meaning is a tree
- 23:37 < illegale> you need nods
- 23:37 < urgen> I think we should decide on a rule page secretary
- 23:37 < illegale> right?
- 23:37 < urgen> the one in charge of enacting
- 23:38 < echarp> nah, no need for that
- 23:38 < echarp> fiatlex: pending
- 23:38 < fiatlex> echarp: 2. I agree to participate (proposed by echarp at 18:20 Jun 09; accepted by illegale, urgen)
- 23:38 < echarp> fiatlex: enact 2
- 23:38 < fiatlex> echarp: Rule #2 is now enacted.
- 23:38 < kristallpirat> echarp: not really
- 23:38 < echarp> :)
- 23:39 < urgen> annote 4 This rule defines play and therefor ‘participation’ as agreeing to make more rules for play.
- 23:39 < urgen> oops
- 23:39 < urgen> fiatlex: annote 4 This rule defines play and therefor ‘participation’ as agreeing to make more rules for play.
- 23:39 < echarp> fiatlex: rule 3
- 23:39 < fiatlex> echarp: 3. Rule #2 will be set to ‘enacted’ when three or more ‘accepted’ votes are recieved (proposed by urgen at 21:32 Jun 09; accepted by echarp, illegale)
- 23:40 < echarp> fiatlex: enact 3
- 23:40 < fiatlex> echarp: Rule #3 is now enacted.
- 23:40 < urgen> fiatlex: annote rule 4 This rule defines play and therefor ‘participation’ as agreeing to make more rules for play.
- 23:40 < urgen> hmn
- 23:40 < echarp> hmmm, I considered that proposing meant “accepting”
- 23:40 < urgen> oh
- 23:40 < echarp> urgen: this is a goal in itself!
- 23:41 < echarp> you are removing any “limit” to this game
- 23:41 < urgen> there should be no limit
- 23:41 < urgen> so,
- 23:42 < urgen> if rule 3 is now enacted.. and only two of the three participants voted…
- 23:42 < urgen> I guess that means we aren’t on a consensus system
- 23:42 < illegale> Kristall pirat, how do you group simmilar meanings?
- 23:42 < illegale> you need nods
- 23:42 < echarp> or, that proposing implicitely means acceptation
- 23:42 < illegale> right?
- 23:42 < echarp> nodes? nods?
- 23:42 < urgen> I’ve been known to propose something that I’ve changed my mind on before
- 23:43 < urgen> but maybe that means explicit no required
- 23:43 < urgen> there is also an abstain.
- 23:43 < kristallpirat> echarp: there is an axiom: your language skill borders how you can describe to anyone that was no vitness
- 23:43 < urgen> if we make a rule those who propose can not vote on their own rule….
- 23:43 < echarp> such a rule is possible yes
- 23:44 < illegale> kristallpirat, nevermind
- 23:44 < echarp> we can also dis-enact an enacted rule in case of opposing votes
- 23:44 < urgen> so it is enact by any acceptance?
- 23:44 < urgen> that sounds unresolved
- 23:44 < echarp> it could be
- 23:44 < kristallpirat> yes a tree contains nodes of leafes or ..
- 23:45 < kristallpirat> s/of/or
- 23:45 < echarp> or at least 3 votes and no opposing votes
- 23:45 < urgen> oh I see..
- 23:45 < urgen> so maybe we are on majority system
- 23:46 < urgen> if there exists two to support even if one does not then it passes
- 23:46 < urgen> there would have to be two rejections to not move forward
- 23:46 < echarp> rule 3 is important
- 23:46 < echarp> fiatlex: rule 3
- 23:46 < fiatlex> echarp: 3. Rule #2 will be set to ‘enacted’ when three or more ‘accepted’ votes are recieved (enacted at 21:41 Jun 09; proposed by urgen at 21:32 Jun 09; accepted by echarp, illegale)
- 23:47 < urgen> so since we don’t have a clear definition of “accepted vote recieved” there is some confusion on the status of #2
- 23:47 < echarp> yeap
- 23:47 < echarp> without any background rules, it’s rather a mess :)
- 23:47 < echarp> kristallpirat, illegale: usually a game of nomic starts with pre existing rules
- 23:47 < urgen> so lets formalize no implicit votes allowed
- 23:48 < urgen> please express position on all proposals by accept, reject, or abstain
- 23:48 < urgen> but maybe that should be in propos