Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Humble Agoran farmer offers wood for sheep (oh, attn Notary btw)
I wrote:
Oh, good catch. I intend (with Agoran consent of Collectors) to amend
this contract to read, in full:
Administrivia:
1) The name of this contract is Card Collective Contract, Agoran
(abbr. CCCA).
2) Any player CAN join or leave CCCA by announcement. Members of CCCA
are known as Collectors.
3) Any Collector CAN amend CCCA with Agoran consent of Collectors.
4) The Secretary General is Murphy.
5) A Person of Interest is a player or former player.
Balances:
1) Each type of Card has a corresponding List, which is an ordered
sequence of Persons of Interest (who may appear multiple times),
initially empty.
2) When a player transfers N instances of one type of Card to this
contract, e is added N times to the end of that type's List.
3) If at any time CCCA has no instances of a type of Card, then
that Card's List becomes empty.
Collection:
1) To perform Collection for N instances of one type of Card is to do
the following:
a) Transfer that many instances from CCCA to oneself.
b) Pay that many instances as a single set to earn Products.
c) The Comrades are the first entries (up to N) in that type's
List who are players. Transfer one Product earned in the
previous step to the first Comrade (or keep it if that Comrade
is the performer), then one to the second, etc., returning to
the last Comrade after the first, until all those Products are
transferred. Then remove those entries from that List.
Other clauses notwithstanding, Collection may only be performed if
it fully succeeds in one message and has at least one Comrade.
2) Any Collector CAN perform Collection for N instances of one type of
Card with Agoran consent of Collectors.
3) If CCCA has at least as many instances of one type of Card as the
largest single set that can be paid to earn Products, then the
Secretary General CAN and SHALL perform Collection for such a
maximal set of that type.
Non-binding notes
The Collectors SHOULD update these as needed for accuracy.
Example:
* Legislative Cards are deposited by (in order) A, B, C, A, D, E
* LC List is now {A, B, A, C, D, E}
* A performs Collection (4 LCs for 10 Pendants)
* Comrades are A, B, A, C
* A transfers those 10 Pendants as follows: keep, B, C, keep,
(back to start) keep, B, C, keep, (back to start) keep, B
* LC List is now {D, E}
If B deregistered prior to this Collection, then instead:
* Comrades are A, C, A, D
* A transfers (total of) 3 to C, 2 to D, keeps other 5
* LC List is now {B, E}
Non-players can't own assets, but remain on Lists in case they
re-register. Non-Collector players can deposit and benefit, but
can't influence the timing of voluntary payouts.
I amend this contract in accordance with the above-quoted statement of
intent (with the consent of all parties, i.e. just me for now).
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8459-8472
I vote as follows. As usual, in case of ambiguity, proposal titles are most important in determining my intent. 8459* Jason, [1] 3.0 Talismans FOR 8460* G., ais523 3.0 UV-G Sunblock FOR 8461l R. Lee, Aris 2.0 Redoing Adopted Proposals FOR 8462* Jason, Falsifian 3.0 Fee-based methods FOR 8463* Jason3.0 Future-proofing black ribbons FOR 8464j R. Lee 1.0 You can certify, but you can't win ever! AGAINST (rather fix it properly) 8465j Jason, P.S.S.1.0 Public defense FOR 8466l ATMunn 1.0 the simple option AGAINST (rather keep it and fix it properly) 8467e Jason, Trigon2.0 Talismans auction patch FOR 8468* Jason, nch, G. 3.0 Decision resolution patch FOR 8469f Aris, [1]2.0 Bureaucratic Reengineering FOR 8470l nch, G., Trigon 1.0 Sponsored Proposals FOR 8471j R. Lee, Aris 1.7 Only the PM can be arbitrary! AGAINST (a Referee who actually abuses that power would presumably be impeached anyway) 8472p Aris 2.0 Welcoming Back Outlaws, etc. FOR
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Draft Judgement of CFJ 3860
On 7/2/2020 11:41 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: >> So where this sort of thing got judged or entered custom to count for our >> version of "clear" is still a mystery. So at this point, I'm honestly >> happy if the judge just mentions "this sort of thing worked before, but >> the precedents are confused and let's look at it fresh" or "this one was >> *extremely* buried" with maybe a quickie comparison between the actual >> past hidden messages (not worrying much more what the past judgements >> thought). > > I will make sure to look at the CFJs first, but it's likely that this is > what I will do. Thanks! Not requesting more than that. I'll add a gratuitous coda/final argument for the record: This chapter in Agoran history ended soon after the Bank Heist, which brought about a dependent action fix by Proposal 8107 (Buried Intent Prevention Act v2, adopted 27-Oct-18). That proposal changed this text: > “1. A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the action, > unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and method(s) > (including the value of N and/or T for each method), at most fourteen > days earlier.“ to: > “1. A person (the initiator) conspicuously and without obfuscation > announced intent to perform the action, unambiguously and clearly > specifying the action and method(s) (including the value of N and/or T > for each method), at most fourteen days earlier.“ This separation made "without obfuscation" part of the whole announcement message (meaning 'no hiding' the intent overall), but separated "unambiguously and clearly specify" to refer only to the intent contents (asking once you find the intent in the message, is it clear?) That distinction currently persists in game custom, and in the dependent action rules text (game custom seems to apply the standard to all action specifications not just intents), and is the basis for my vote counting. -G.
BUS: Re: DIS: Draft Judgement of CFJ 3860
On 7/2/2020 11:05 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > Thank you for the input. I will definitely take a closer look at those > previous cases and incorporate them into my judgement. It's my bad for > not at least briefly looking for previous precedents. If someone finds > that other successful hidden message from 2018, I will incorporate that too. Found it. And it's ... somewhat unhelpful. Sending to BUS to make it formally "gratuitous" and put the messages in evidence: Hidden intent message forwarded in full when the action was actually performed: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-October/039325.html (shorter report, but payload lines are even more hidden within the report - see if you can find without peeking at the answer). CFJ was 3670, called here but with no Caller's Arguments: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-October/039327.html Judged here: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-October/039452.html And unfortunately, by that time it looks like everyone pretty much accepted that the hidden message was fine, and the arguments were all about a contract thing that might have been wrong. Here's what that CFJ 3670 judgement says about clarity: > As the intent was > published to a public forum, e had given sufficient notice, and the > intent, although it followed a quoted statement, was not buried, the > condition is fulfilled and e did, in fact, perform the three given > actions. So the judge says that intent was "not buried" (though to me it looks pretty buried!) So where this sort of thing got judged or entered custom to count for our version of "clear" is still a mystery. So at this point, I'm honestly happy if the judge just mentions "this sort of thing worked before, but the precedents are confused and let's look at it fresh" or "this one was *extremely* buried" with maybe a quickie comparison between the actual past hidden messages (not worrying much more what the past judgements thought). -G.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8459-8472
I, nch, cast a**ballot (syn. vote) which I believe to be valid on each of the following proposals wherein the vote directly below the quote with the proposal number is the vote on that proposal. On 6/30/20 1:54 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-official wrote: > 8459* Jason, [1] 3.0 Talismans FOR > 8460* G., ais523 3.0 UV-G Sunblock PRESENT > 8461l R. Lee, Aris 2.0 Redoing Adopted Proposals PRESENT > 8462* Jason, Falsifian 3.0 Fee-based methods FOR > 8463* Jason3.0 Future-proofing black ribbons PRESENT > 8464j R. Lee 1.0 You can certify, but you can't win ever! PRESENT > 8465j Jason, P.S.S.1.0 Public defense FOR > 8466l ATMunn 1.0 the simple option FOR > 8467e Jason, Trigon2.0 Talismans auction patch PRESENT > 8468* Jason, nch, G. 3.0 Decision resolution patch FOR > 8469f Aris, [1]2.0 Bureaucratic Reengineering FOR > 8470l nch, G., Trigon 1.0 Sponsored Proposals FOR > 8471j R. Lee, Aris 1.7 Only the PM can be arbitrary! PRESENT > 8472p Aris 2.0 Welcoming Back Outlaws, etc. FOR -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
[Attn. ATMunn, CotC] Re: [Attn. Referee] Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal 8458 (Third time's the charm)
On 7/1/20 11:24 PM, omd via agora-business wrote: > On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 8:00 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion > wrote: >>> CoE: This resolution is invalid because the decision was already resolved >>> the previous time, because G.’s vote was invalid, because it did not >>> “clearly set[] forth the voter’s intent to place the identified vote”. >> >> >> In what way was it not clear? It was certainly not conspicuous, but it >> was clear. > > Although “clear and conspicuous” is a common legal term, I consider it at > least > partly a legal doublet, like “null and void”. It may be possible to be > conspicuous without being clear, but it is much more questionable whether > something can be clear without being conspicuous. > > For example, Google’s dictionary definition of “clear” is: > > 1. easy to perceive, understand, or interpret. > > However, the ballot in question went out of its way to make it hard for > players > to perceive it, or understand or interpret that it was a ballot. > > -- > > CFJ: “G. cast a valid ballot on Proposal 8458.” I assign this CFJ to ATMunn. I believe that it is CFJ 3860, but I will leave it to the Clerk of the Courts to assign. > > I submit this CFJ to the Referee. (No malice, but I may as well avoid > the obvious conflict of interest.) > > Arguments: The above. > > Evidence (1): > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-June/043813.html > > Evidence (2): > > “Oh, yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, > yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call > attention to them, had you? I mean like actually telling anybody or > anything.” > > “But the plans were on display…” > > “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.” > > “That’s the display department.” > > “With a flashlight.” > > “Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.” > > “So had the stairs.” > > “But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?” > > “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a > locked > filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying > ‘Beware of the Leopard.” > -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
[Attn. Jason, CotC] Re: [Attn. Referee] Re: BUS: @Notary @Treasuror, I do the scam anyway
On 7/2/20 12:43 AM, omd via agora-business wrote:
> at 7:26 AM, Becca Lee via agora-business
> wrote:
>
>> {Acting on behalf of nch, I resolve one of eir intents to deregister R.
>> Lee. I register. I award myself a welcome package. I transfer a victory
>> card and a justice card to nch.}
>>
>> I repeat the above actions in braces so that they happen 16 times total.
>> Nch has 18 victory cards and 18 justice cards.
>>
>> I act on nch’s behalf to pay those victory and justice cards into
>> products
>> in 4 sets of 4 so that e has 40 victory points and 40 Blot-B-Gones.
>
> CFJ, submitted to Referee: The above-quoted attempt to pay cards on
> nch’s behalf was unsuccessful because attempting to pay 18 Victory Cards
> and/or 18 Justice Cards in 4 sets of 4 is self-contradictory.
I assign this CFJ to Jason. I believe that it is CFJ 3861, but I will
leave it to the Clerk of the Courts to assign.
>
> Evidence: The above quote.
>
> Supposing it was unsuccessful, then...
>
>> I act
>> on nch’s behalf to transfer 40 victory points to myself and 40
>> Blot-B-Gones to myself. (I now have 0 blots and 40 blot-b-gones). I
>> expunge
>> 40 blots from myself. I am now Pure and I own over 20 more points
>> than any
>> other player. I win the game by announcement. All cards and products
>> are
>> destroyed, then one of each card is created in each player’s possession.
>
> ...all of the above also fails...
>
>> There are still 24 intents left. I give myself 40 blots.
>
> …but this succeeds, leaving R. Lee with 80 Blots.
>
>> {Acting on behalf of nch, I resolve one of eir intents to deregister
>> R. Lee.
>>
>> I register. I award myself a welcome package. I transfer a victory
>> card and
>> a justice card to nch.}
>>
>> I repeat the above actions in braces enough so that they happen 24 times
>> total. Nch now has 25 justice cards and 25 victory cards. I act on behalf
>> of nch to pay those cards in 6 sets of 4 to make 60 Blot-B-Gone and 60
>> Victory Points.
>
> This would fail for the same reason as the last one.
>
>> I act on nch’s behalf to transfer those assets to myself.
>
> And this would also fail.
--
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate
Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
