Re: DIS: Re: BUS: White Glitter (thanks nix)

[Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2021, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:


I'm really confused...

Questions (for Ørjan, I guess?) inline. I'm quoting Ørjan out of order
since my questions make a bit more sense in that order.


The last and only time I came to qualify for a White Ribbon when I
became a player:

 White (W): A player qualifies for a White Ribbon if e has never
 previously owned a White Ribbon (including under previous
 rulesets). ...

I have not been awarded a White Ribbon or White Glitter since that
time. Isn't the time period in question?


Your original quote left out the previous sentence of 2602:

  A player qualifies for a type of Glitter when e
  qualifies for the same type of Ribbon while already owning such a
  Ribbon.

Clearly the next sentence is _intended_ to apply only when that happens, but
does not actually say so.


Are you saying that sentence I left out is relevant to this case? I
can't think of any interpretation where it is, if we're going to stay
faithful to "the text of the rules takes precedence".

I agree about the intention, but that doesn't matter here, does it?


Indeed.  I'm just saying it would be a good idea to fix the rule to say 
what was intended.



I suppose this case (at least for non-White Ribbons) hinges on which of
those interpretations is the correct one for this sentence.  It looks
grammatically ambiguous to me, with its negation having ambiguous scope as
negations do.

  If a player has not (been awarded that type of Ribbon or e
  corresponding type of Glitter since e last earned or came to
  qualify for that type of Ribbon)

vs.

  If a player has (not been awarded that type of Ribbon or e
  corresponding type of Glitter) since e last earned or came to
  qualify for that type of Ribbon

I don't really dispute Murphy's interpretation but think judgements should
point out (or dispute) that there is an ambiguity before they resolve it.


I don't understand how this is relevant to the case either.

If my claim about the time period is true, then under both
interpretations I successfully awarded myself White Glitter. Do you
agree with that?


Yes.  I wasn't commenting on that part.


Are you saying my claim about the time period is false?

I think I'm missing something...


I guess I made it unclear that I _wasn't_ disputing your new argument.


--
Falsifian


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: White Glitter (thanks nix)

[Falsifian via agora-discussion]

I'm really confused...

Questions (for Ørjan, I guess?) inline. I'm quoting Ørjan out of order
since my questions make a bit more sense in that order.


> > The last and only time I came to qualify for a White Ribbon when I
> > became a player:
> > 
> >  White (W): A player qualifies for a White Ribbon if e has never
> >  previously owned a White Ribbon (including under previous
> >  rulesets). ...
> > 
> > I have not been awarded a White Ribbon or White Glitter since that
> > time. Isn't the time period in question?
> 
> Your original quote left out the previous sentence of 2602:
> 
>   A player qualifies for a type of Glitter when e
>   qualifies for the same type of Ribbon while already owning such a
>   Ribbon.
> 
> Clearly the next sentence is _intended_ to apply only when that happens, but
> does not actually say so.

Are you saying that sentence I left out is relevant to this case? I
can't think of any interpretation where it is, if we're going to stay
faithful to "the text of the rules takes precedence".

I agree about the intention, but that doesn't matter here, does it?


> I suppose this case (at least for non-White Ribbons) hinges on which of
> those interpretations is the correct one for this sentence.  It looks
> grammatically ambiguous to me, with its negation having ambiguous scope as
> negations do.
> 
>   If a player has not (been awarded that type of Ribbon or e
>   corresponding type of Glitter since e last earned or came to
>   qualify for that type of Ribbon)
> 
> vs.
> 
>   If a player has (not been awarded that type of Ribbon or e
>   corresponding type of Glitter) since e last earned or came to
>   qualify for that type of Ribbon
> 
> I don't really dispute Murphy's interpretation but think judgements should
> point out (or dispute) that there is an ambiguity before they resolve it.

I don't understand how this is relevant to the case either.

If my claim about the time period is true, then under both
interpretations I successfully awarded myself White Glitter. Do you
agree with that?

Are you saying my claim about the time period is false?

I think I'm missing something...


> Greetings,
> Ørjan.

-- 
Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection

[Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2021, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote:


On Mon, 11 Oct 2021, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:


Taking suggestions, as usual; it'll probably take many eyes to find the
best sentence or group of sentences from here to add to the Device.

(One thing worth noting: Ribbon Ownership is secured, so a Power-1
Device definition won't be able to change it, or change what it applies
to; and the rule itself doesn't explicitly allow lower-powered rules to
redefine "qualifies" so they probably can't. That rather limits what
possibilities might actually do something, e.g. "The Device qualifies
for a Platinum Ribbon" is a legal text replacement but probably doesn't
do anything.)


There is one possible exception, since the Device Rule is an Instrument:

 When this occurs, this Device awards that person a Black Ribbon.

And I think the current rule looks just right for it to work.


Alas, Jason pointed out in chat that "awards" is not "earns".  :(

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection

[Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2021, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:


Taking suggestions, as usual; it'll probably take many eyes to find the
best sentence or group of sentences from here to add to the Device.

(One thing worth noting: Ribbon Ownership is secured, so a Power-1
Device definition won't be able to change it, or change what it applies
to; and the rule itself doesn't explicitly allow lower-powered rules to
redefine "qualifies" so they probably can't. That rather limits what
possibilities might actually do something, e.g. "The Device qualifies
for a Platinum Ribbon" is a legal text replacement but probably doesn't
do anything.)


There is one possible exception, since the Device Rule is an Instrument:

  When this occurs, this Device awards that person a Black Ribbon.

And I think the current rule looks just right for it to work.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Proto: Rebellion

[Edward Murphy via agora-discussion]

Proto-Proposal: Rebellion

[Someone (G.?) mentioned this recently, so here it is. Based on similar
 rules that were repealed in November 2006 following a major lull.]

Create a rule titled "Orthodoxy" with Power 2 and this text:

  Orthodoxy is a player switch with values abiding (default) and
  rebellious.

  Once a month, a player CAN flip eir orthodoxy by announcement.

  Being rebellious at the start of a month is the Class 2 Crime
  of Inciting to Riot, unless all of the following are true at
  that time:

a) The success or failure of the most recent Revolt has not yet
   been determined.

b) The player was rebellious at the time of that Call for
   Revolt, and has not become rebellious since then.

  In that case, e is instead Hauled Into Kangaroo Court, and if
  that Revolt fails, then e is considered to commit the Crime when
  its failure is determined.

Create a rule titled "Rebellion" with Power 2 and this text:

  A Call for Revolt is a notice published by a player (the Agitator)
  which alleges, roughly, that the current government is corrupt,
  oppressive and self-serving, that rather than watching over the
  people it is watching the people, that action must be taken, and
  furthermore asserts that we do not need a key, because we can
  break in.

  A Call for Revolt is valid only if all of the following were true
  at the time of publication:

a) The Agitator is rebellious.

b) No other Call for Revolt was published earlier that week.

c) No Revolt succeeded within the past thirty days.

  The Rebels / Loyalists are the players who were rebellious /
  abiding (respectively) at the time of publication.

  When a valid Call for Revolt is published, the Registrar SHALL as
  soon as possible randomly choose whether the Revolt succeeds,
  where its chance of doing so equals the ratio of the number of
  Rebels to the number of Rebels plus Loyalists, and publish the
  result.

  If the Revolt succeeded:

a) All blots possessed by Rebels are expunged.

b) Each Rebel is awarded the Badge of Hero of the Rebellion of
   .

c) Each office held by a Loyalist becomes vacant.

d) Each Rebel becomes abiding.

  If the Revolt failed, then each Rebel gains 2 blots, and the
  Agitator gains 2 additional blots.

Create a Rule titled "Bastille Day" with Power 2 and this text:

  For a Call for Revolt published on July 14, the normal
  procedure is modified as follows, rules to the contrary
  notwithstanding:

a) Each Rebel who publically hummed a few bars of 'La
   Marseillaise' during that day counts as two Rebels for the
   purpose of determining whether the Revolt succeeds.

b) If the Revolt succeeds, then one blot per Rebel is left
   unexpunged, and each Rebel with no blots gains a blot.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: White Glitter (thanks nix)

[Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion]

On Sun, 10 Oct 2021, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:


On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 03:42:14PM -0700, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion 
wrote:

Falsifian wrote:


I award myself White Glitter.

Note: I do not own a White Ribbon, but R2602 might not actually require
me to own the ribbon:

 If a player has not been awarded that type of Ribbon or e
 corresponding type of Glitter since e last earned or came to
 qualify for that type of Ribbon, and has not been so awarded five
 or more times within the past 24 hours, any player CAN award em
 that type of Glitter by announcement.


I currently interpret "there is no such time period" as separate from
"there is such a time period and X didn't happen during it", in which
case this award was ineffective. (See cuddlybanana's CFJ.)


I suppose this case (at least for non-White Ribbons) hinges on which of 
those interpretations is the correct one for this sentence.  It looks 
grammatically ambiguous to me, with its negation having ambiguous scope as 
negations do.


  If a player has not (been awarded that type of Ribbon or e
  corresponding type of Glitter since e last earned or came to
  qualify for that type of Ribbon)

vs.

  If a player has (not been awarded that type of Ribbon or e
  corresponding type of Glitter) since e last earned or came to
  qualify for that type of Ribbon

I don't really dispute Murphy's interpretation but think judgements should 
point out (or dispute) that there is an ambiguity before they resolve it.



The last and only time I came to qualify for a White Ribbon when I
became a player:

 White (W): A player qualifies for a White Ribbon if e has never
 previously owned a White Ribbon (including under previous
 rulesets). ...

I have not been awarded a White Ribbon or White Glitter since that
time. Isn't the time period in question?


Your original quote left out the previous sentence of 2602:

  A player qualifies for a type of Glitter when e
  qualifies for the same type of Ribbon while already owning such a
  Ribbon.

Clearly the next sentence is _intended_ to apply only when that happens, 
but does not actually say so.


Clarifying fix: Change

  If a player has not been awarded that type of Ribbon or e

to (including another typo correction)

  If such a player has not been awarded that type of Ribbon or the


Falsifian


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection

[Trigon via agora-discussion]

El 11/10/2021 a las 00:15, ais523 via agora-discussion escribió:

   For each type of Ribbon,  Ribbon Ownership is a secured
   negative boolean person switch, tracked by the Tailor in eir
   monthly report.


"For each type of Device,  Device Ownership is a secured negative 
boolean person switch, tracked by the Tailor in eir monthly report."


--
Trigon

 ¸¸.•*¨*• Play AGORA QUEST





I’m always happy to become a party to contracts.
I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

DIS: Re: BUS: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection

[ais523 via agora-discussion]

On Mon, 2021-10-11 at 02:08 +0200, nethack4.org dicebot via agora-
business wrote:
> The dice roll was: 67
> This is R2438, Ribbons.

This is a pretty long one! For reference:
{{{
  The Tailor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Ribbons.
  
  For each type of Ribbon,  Ribbon Ownership is a secured
  negative boolean person switch, tracked by the Tailor in eir
  monthly report.
  
  To "award a person a " is to flip that person's
   Ribbon Ownership to True. A person "owns a " if eir  Ribbon Ownership is True.
  
  A person qualifies for a type of Ribbon if e has earned that type
  of Ribbon within the preceding 7 days (including earlier in the
  same message).
  
  While a person owns all types of Ribbon, that person can Raise a
  Banner by announcement. This causes that person to win the game.
  When a person wins this way, for each type of Ribbon, that
  person's  Ribbon Ownership is flipped to False.
  
  The types of Ribbon, and the methods of obtaining them, are as
  follows:
  
  Red (R): When a proposal is adopted and changes at least one rule
  that, immediately before or after the change, has Power >= 3, its
  proposer earns a Red Ribbon.
  
  Orange (O): When a proposal is adopted via a referendum on which
  no valid ballots were AGAINST (after evaluating conditionals), its
  proposer earns an Orange Ribbon.
  
  Green (G): While a person holds an elected office, has done so
  continuously for the past 30 days, and has not failed to perform
  any duties of that office within the appropriate time limits
  during those 30 days, that person qualifies for a Green Ribbon.
  
  Emerald (E): When a person wins an election, e earns an Emerald
  Ribbon.
  
  Cyan (C): When a person deputises for an office, that person earns
  a Cyan Ribbon.
  
  Blue (B): When a person assigns a judgement to a CFJ, and has
  never violated a time limit to assign a judgement to that CFJ,
  nor ever self-filed a motion to reconsider that CFJ, that person
  earns a Blue Ribbon.
  
  Magenta (M): When, during Agora's Birthday, a person publicly
  acknowledges it, that person earns a Magenta Ribbon.
  
  Ultraviolet (U): When a person is awarded the Patent Title
  Champion, that person earns an Ultraviolet Ribbon, unless the
  Champion title was awarded as the result of winning the game via
  this rule.
  
  Violet (V): When a person is awarded a Patent Title other than
  Champion or a degree, that person earns a Violet Ribbon.
  
  Indigo (I): When a person is awarded a degree, that person earns
  an Indigo Ribbon.
  
  Platinum (P): The Speaker qualifies for a Platinum Ribbon.
  
  Lime (L): A person qualifies for a Lime Ribbon if three or more
  proposals adopted in the preceding 7 days had that person as a
  coauthor.
  
  White (W): A player qualifies for a White Ribbon if e has never
  previously owned a White Ribbon (including under previous
  rulesets). A player who has been registered for at least 30 days
  and has never acted on eir own behalf to cause another person to
  gain a White Ribbon (including under a previous ruleset) CAN act
  on eir own behalf to award a White Ribbon to another person by
  announcement.
  
  Black (K): An instrument CAN, as part of its effect, cause a
  person to earn a Black Ribbon. When this occurs, this Rule awards
  that person a Black Ribbon.
  
  Gray (A): The Tailor CAN award a Gray Ribbon by announcement,
  unless e has done so earlier in the month. E is ENCOURAGED to
  award such a Ribbon in the same message in which e publishes eir
  monthly report.
  
  Transparent (T): A person qualifies for a Transparent Ribbon while
  the number of other types of Ribbon that that person qualifies
  for, earns, and/or was awarded within the previous 7 days is at
  least 5.
  
  While a person qualifies for a type of Ribbon:
  
- If e has not owned that type of Ribbon within the preceding 7
  days, any player CAN, by announcement, award em that type of
  Ribbon.
}}}

Taking suggestions, as usual; it'll probably take many eyes to find the
best sentence or group of sentences from here to add to the Device.

(One thing worth noting: Ribbon Ownership is secured, so a Power-1
Device definition won't be able to change it, or change what it applies
to; and the rule itself doesn't explicitly allow lower-powered rules to
redefine "qualifies" so they probably can't. That rather limits what
possibilities might actually do something, e.g. "The Device qualifies
for a Platinum Ribbon" is a legal text replacement but probably doesn't
do anything.)

-- 
ais523
Mad Engineer

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: White Glitter (thanks nix)

[Falsifian via agora-discussion]

On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 03:42:14PM -0700, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion 
wrote:
> Falsifian wrote:
> 
> > I award myself White Glitter.
> > 
> > Note: I do not own a White Ribbon, but R2602 might not actually require
> > me to own the ribbon:
> > 
> >  If a player has not been awarded that type of Ribbon or e
> >  corresponding type of Glitter since e last earned or came to
> >  qualify for that type of Ribbon, and has not been so awarded five
> >  or more times within the past 24 hours, any player CAN award em
> >  that type of Glitter by announcement.
> 
> I currently interpret "there is no such time period" as separate from
> "there is such a time period and X didn't happen during it", in which
> case this award was ineffective. (See cuddlybanana's CFJ.)

The last and only time I came to qualify for a White Ribbon when I
became a player:

  White (W): A player qualifies for a White Ribbon if e has never
  previously owned a White Ribbon (including under previous
  rulesets). ...

I have not been awarded a White Ribbon or White Glitter since that
time. Isn't the time period in question?

-- 
Falsifian

DIS: Re: OFF: Re: [Deputy Registrar] Weekly Report

[Edward Murphy via agora-discussion]

Shy Owl wrote:


I'm not sure my former deputization worked, so here is the Registrar's
Monthly Report again.


What followed was actually the weekly report. As the body disagreed with
the subject and was incorrect, I interpret it as ineffective. (None of
these interpretations should have any substantive importance; I still
interpret that you published each report once this week.)

DIS: Re: OFF: Re: [deputy Registrar] Arrivals/Departures (Monthly)

[Edward Murphy via agora-discussion]

Shy Owl wrote:


I deputise for Registrar(office is vacant).

Below is the Registrar's Monthly Report.


This may not have worked. If it did not:

I deputise for Register in order to publish the following monthly
report.


I don't know any particular reason why the first one wouldn't have
worked - the intent is reasonably clear and equivalent to the form
appearing in the rules - so I interpret it as effective, and the
second as ineffective.

DIS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Registrar] Weekly Report

[Edward Murphy via agora-discussion]

Shy Owl wrote:


I deputise for Register (office is vacant).


Not any more it isn't, you became the officeholder by deputising to
publish the monthly report, and so this is just a normal publication.

For it to be vacant at this point, you would have had to either
  a) announce it as temporary deputisation
or
  b) resign after deputising.

DIS: Re: BUS: Webmastor!

[Edward Murphy via agora-discussion]

cuddlybanana wrote:


I deputise myself as webmastor.


This is ineffective. Per Rule 2160, you would need to actually carry out
some duty of the office, e.g. publish a (reasonably complete) report.

DIS: Re: BUS: White Glitter (thanks nix)

[Edward Murphy via agora-discussion]

Falsifian wrote:


I award myself White Glitter.

Note: I do not own a White Ribbon, but R2602 might not actually require
me to own the ribbon:

 If a player has not been awarded that type of Ribbon or e
 corresponding type of Glitter since e last earned or came to
 qualify for that type of Ribbon, and has not been so awarded five
 or more times within the past 24 hours, any player CAN award em
 that type of Glitter by announcement.


I currently interpret "there is no such time period" as separate from
"there is such a time period and X didn't happen during it", in which
case this award was ineffective. (See cuddlybanana's CFJ.)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: humble agoran farmer makes more deals

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Oct 8, 2021, at 8:13 PM, Sarah S. via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> I think the contract still works without you being a party to it

Pretty sure it doesn’t:

[Rule 1742/23, in part]

A party to a contract CAN perform any of the following actions as
explicitly and unambiguously permitted by the contract's body:
  
* Act on behalf of another party to the contract.

Gaelan

DIS: Re: BUS: *Prizes* Mini-game: Cuddlebeam's new name *Fun*

[Falsifian via agora-discussion]

Here's what Cuddlebeam had to say list month about the options:

> Madrid and Jerez are locations I hold dear. I was actually inspired for
> this by a university friend who we call "Murcia" (Mur-see-ah) because he's
> from Murcia. Later on I saw Money Heist (La Casa de Papel) on Netflix and I
> was like oh, location names are cool.
> 
> Gomez, Osorio and Rodriguez are surnames. You might be familiar with
> Picasso's overly long name? Well, it's a Spanish custom to do that, it's
> just not typical nowadays to actually have had your name legally registered
> as it like he had. Some of those surnames may or may not be part of my
> collection of names.

-- 
Falsifian