BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8478-8487
TTttPF > On Aug 2, 2020, at 6:09 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > >> On Aug 2, 2020, at 2:58 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-official >> wrote: >> >> ID Author(s)AITitle >> --- >> 8478*^ Jason, nix, G. 3.0 another talismans fix > > FOR > >> 8479j^ nix, Aris, PSS, ATMunn 1.7 Competitive Finger Pointing v2 > > FOR > >> 8480e^ Jason1.0 Generic welcome package fix > > FOR > >> 8481*^ Trigon, Aris 3.0 If it's not pending we don't care v2 > > AGAINST - having a list of pending proposals is useful, IMO. Happy to > reconsider if this is a big load on the Promotor. > >> 8482f^ Trigon, ATMunn 1.0 Offices are complex v2 > > FOR > >> 8483l^ G. 1.0 a minor adjustment > > AGAINST > >> 8484*^ Murphy, CB, Aris 3.0 Clarify asset ownership > > AGAINST per discussion elsewhere > >> 8485*^ Gaelan, Aris 3.0 Eternal Personhood > > FOR > >> 8486* Jason, omd 3.0 Fee-based de-escalation > > FOR - I think this wording works, but I’m not sure > >> 8487*^ Murphy, R. Lee 3.0 Simpler ribbon switches > > FOR > > Gaelan >
Re: BUS: Notice of Honour
On 2020-08-02 21:32, Falsifian via agora-business wrote: Notice of Honour: +1 to P.S.S. for a well-run tournament. -1 to Agora as default Notice of Honour: +1 to Gaelan for making Greg (the week before last) -1 to Agora as default -- Falsifian
Re: BUS: I have one victory card and will trade it for a justice or legislative card
On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 9:25 AM nix via agora-business <
agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 8/2/20 6:20 PM, N. S. via agora-business wrote:
> >
> > See title. I can also create voting cards as coopers and will trade 1
> > victory+1 voting for two justice/legislative cards.
> >
> > --
> > From R. Lee
> >
>
> I create the following promise:
>
> {
> Cashing Condition: The bearer transfers 1 victory card to nix.
>
> Effect: Nix transfers a justice card to the bearer.
> }
>
> I transfer the above promise to R. Lee.
>
> --
> nix
> Prime Minister, Webmastor
>
>
I trade 1 victory card to nix and cash that promise
--
>From R. Lee
Re: BUS: I have one victory card and will trade it for a justice or legislative card
On 8/2/20 6:20 PM, N. S. via agora-business wrote:
>
> See title. I can also create voting cards as coopers and will trade 1
> victory+1 voting for two justice/legislative cards.
>
> --
> From R. Lee
>
I create the following promise:
{
Cashing Condition: The bearer transfers 1 victory card to nix.
Effect: Nix transfers a justice card to the bearer.
}
I transfer the above promise to R. Lee.
--
nix
Prime Minister, Webmastor
BUS: I have one victory card and will trade it for a justice or legislative card
See title. I can also create voting cards as coopers and will trade 1 victory+1 voting for two justice/legislative cards. -- >From R. Lee
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8478-8487
I vote as follows: > 8478*^ Jason, nix, G. 3.0 another talismans fix FOR > 8479j^ nix, Aris, PSS, ATMunn 1.7 Competitive Finger Pointing v2 PRESENT > 8480e^ Jason1.0 Generic welcome package fix FOR > 8481*^ Trigon, Aris 3.0 If it's not pending we don't care v2 ENDORSE the Promotor > 8482f^ Trigon, ATMunn 1.0 Offices are complex v2 FOR > 8483l^ G. 1.0 a minor adjustment AGAINST, but I'm curious if G. can convince me otherwise. > 8484*^ Murphy, CB, Aris 3.0 Clarify asset ownership AGAINST. This breaks the L dept., since no asset right now is explicitly described as being ownable by it. > 8485*^ Gaelan, Aris 3.0 Eternal Personhood FOR > 8486* Jason, omd 3.0 Fee-based de-escalation FOR > 8487*^ Murphy, R. Lee 3.0 Simpler ribbon switches ENDORSE the Tailor -- Jason Cobb
BUS: [Pledge] Voting strength purchasing
For the next 7 days, I pledge to perform one of the following actions each time a person grants or transfers me a Voting Card: a) transfer 20 coins to em, or b) transfer a Voting Card to em. [I may be speculating on voting cards becoming more powerful in the future.] -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8478-8487
On 8/2/20 6:05 PM, N. S. via agora-discussion wrote: >> AGAINST until and unless G. contacts me separately > > Conditional impossible to evaluate > That wasn't intended as a conditional; it was intended as an explanation. On that proposal, I withdraw all previous votes and vote AGAINST. > On Mon., 3 Aug. 2020, 8:02 am Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via > agora-business, wrote: > >> I vote as follows: >> >> On 8/2/20 5:58 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-official wrote: >>> ID Author(s)AITitle >>> >> --- >>> 8478*^ Jason, nix, G. 3.0 another talismans fix >> FOR >>> 8479j^ nix, Aris, PSS, ATMunn 1.7 Competitive Finger Pointing v2 >> FOR >>> 8480e^ Jason1.0 Generic welcome package fix >> FOR >>> 8481*^ Trigon, Aris 3.0 If it's not pending we don't care >> v2 >> FOR >>> 8482f^ Trigon, ATMunn 1.0 Offices are complex v2 >> FOR >>> 8483l^ G. 1.0 a minor adjustment >> AGAINST until and unless G. contacts me separately. >>> 8484*^ Murphy, CB, Aris 3.0 Clarify asset ownership >> FOR >>> 8485*^ Gaelan, Aris 3.0 Eternal Personhood >> FOR >>> 8486* Jason, omd 3.0 Fee-based de-escalation >> FOR >>> 8487*^ Murphy, R. Lee 3.0 Simpler ribbon switches >> FOR >> -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8478-8487
I vote as follows: On 8/2/20 5:58 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-official wrote: > ID Author(s)AITitle > --- > 8478*^ Jason, nix, G. 3.0 another talismans fix FOR > 8479j^ nix, Aris, PSS, ATMunn 1.7 Competitive Finger Pointing v2 FOR > 8480e^ Jason1.0 Generic welcome package fix FOR > 8481*^ Trigon, Aris 3.0 If it's not pending we don't care v2 FOR > 8482f^ Trigon, ATMunn 1.0 Offices are complex v2 FOR > 8483l^ G. 1.0 a minor adjustment AGAINST until and unless G. contacts me separately. > 8484*^ Murphy, CB, Aris 3.0 Clarify asset ownership FOR > 8485*^ Gaelan, Aris 3.0 Eternal Personhood FOR > 8486* Jason, omd 3.0 Fee-based de-escalation FOR > 8487*^ Murphy, R. Lee 3.0 Simpler ribbon switches FOR
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8478-8487
I vote as follows: > ID Author(s)AITitle > --- > 8478*^ Jason, nix, G. 3.0 another talismans fix FOR. > 8479j^ nix, Aris, PSS, ATMunn 1.7 Competitive Finger Pointing v2 FOR. > 8480e^ Jason1.0 Generic welcome package fix FOR. > 8481*^ Trigon, Aris 3.0 If it's not pending we don't care v2 FOR. > 8482f^ Trigon, ATMunn 1.0 Offices are complex v2 FOR. > 8483l^ G. 1.0 a minor adjustment AGAINST. > 8484*^ Murphy, CB, Aris 3.0 Clarify asset ownership FOR. > 8485*^ Gaelan, Aris 3.0 Eternal Personhood FOR. > 8486* Jason, omd 3.0 Fee-based de-escalation FOR. > 8487*^ Murphy, R. Lee 3.0 Simpler ribbon switches FOR. -Aris
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8478-8487
I vote FOR a minor adjustment and PRESENT on the rest
On Mon., 3 Aug. 2020, 7:59 am Aris Merchant via agora-official, <
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> PROMOTOR'S REPORT AS OF RIGHT NOW
>
> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating a referendum on it,
> and removing it from the proposal pool. For this decision, the vote
> collector
> is the Assessor, the quorum is 6, the voting method is AI-majority, and the
> valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
> conditional votes).
>
> ID Author(s)AITitle
> ---
> 8478*^ Jason, nix, G. 3.0 another talismans fix
> 8479j^ nix, Aris, PSS, ATMunn 1.7 Competitive Finger Pointing v2
> 8480e^ Jason1.0 Generic welcome package fix
> 8481*^ Trigon, Aris 3.0 If it's not pending we don't care v2
> 8482f^ Trigon, ATMunn 1.0 Offices are complex v2
> 8483l^ G. 1.0 a minor adjustment
> 8484*^ Murphy, CB, Aris 3.0 Clarify asset ownership
> 8485*^ Gaelan, Aris 3.0 Eternal Personhood
> 8486* Jason, omd 3.0 Fee-based de-escalation
> 8487*^ Murphy, R. Lee 3.0 Simpler ribbon switches
>
> The proposal pool contains the following proposals:
>
> Author(s)AITitle
> ---
> Gaelan 2.0 Agoran Bit-streaming
> Falsifian, Jason, omd3.0 Empty the escalator v1.1
>
>
> Legend: * : Democratic proposal.
> # : Ordinary proposal, unset chamber.
> e : Economy ministry proposal.
> f : Efficiency ministry proposal.
> j : Justice ministry proposal.
> l : Legislation ministry proposal.
> p : Participation ministry proposal.
> ^ : Sponsored proposal.
>
> The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. Where
> the information shown below differs from the information shown above,
> the information shown above shall control.
>
> //
> ID: 8478
> Title: another talismans fix
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Jason
> Co-authors: nix, G.
>
>
> Amend Rule 2574 by replacing the list item beginning "If a player
> possesses more than one" with the following:
>
> {
> - If a player possesses more than one talisman for persons other than
> emself, specify and transfer one of those talismans to Agora;
>
> }
>
> //
> ID: 8479
> Title: Competitive Finger Pointing v2
> Adoption index: 1.7
> Author: nix
> Co-authors: Aris, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, ATMunn
>
>
> Amend R2478, "Vigilante Justice" by adding to the beginning of the
> list:
>
> - Issuing a Warning to the perp, as described elsewhere;
>
> and by adding after the list items:
>
> Initiating a Finger Pointing found to be Shenanigans is ILLEGAL
> and the Class 0+N Crime of Unjustified Gesticulation, where N is
> the number of times e has previously committed the crime in the
> current Agoran Week.
>
> and by adding, to the very end of the rule:
>
> The player who initiated the most Finger Pointings that resulted
> in a Warning, Indictment, or Cold Hand of Justice in the previous
> Agoran Week CAN once grant emself a Justice Card by announcement.
>
> Amend R2557 "Sentencing Guidelines" by adding to the end:
>
> When the rules authorize an investigator to issue a Warning for a
> violation, e CAN do so by announcement if the violation is
> described by the rules as a "Class N Crime" where N is 0 or an
> expression that evaluates to 0.
>
> [There is no ruleset support for class 0 crimes right now. So this
> version adds support by introducing a new thing the investigator can do
> called a Warning.]
>
> //
> ID: 8480
> Title: Generic welcome package fix
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: Jason
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend Rule 2499 by deleting the sentence beginning "A player CANNOT" and
> by replacing the final paragraph with the following:
>
> {
>
> When a player receives a Welcome Package, if e has not received one in
> the past 30 days, then e earns 10 coins and one of each type of Card
> defined in the rules.
>
> }
>
>
> [This makes protects against all possible infinite welcome package scams
> that involve one person receiving infinite welcome packages. With this
> change, a person can get infinite welcome packages, but only the first
> one in each 30 day period will actually grant any rewards (which likely
> makes most scams not worth the hassle).]
>
> //
> ID: 8481
> Title: If it's not pending we don't care v2
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Trigon
> Co-authors: Aris
>
>
> Amend Rule 1607
Re: BUS: Notice of Honour
This is a notice of honour as below On Mon., 3 Aug. 2020, 7:33 am Falsifian via agora-business, < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Notice of Honour: > +1 to P.S.S. for a well-run tournament. > -1 to Agora as default > > -- > Falsifian >
BUS: [Promotor] Ministerial Referrals
The Promotor hereby refers proposals as follows: The proposal "Competitive Finger Pointing v2" is referred to the Ministry of Justice. The proposal "Generic welcome package fix" is referred to the Ministry of Economy. The proposal "Offices are complex v2" is referred to the Ministry of Efficiency.
BUS: Notice of Honour
Notice of Honour: +1 to P.S.S. for a well-run tournament. -1 to Agora as default -- Falsifian
BUS: humble agoran comic [attn. Herald]
I submit the following images with the intent to obtain a degree in Artistry.
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Voting on the Indictment of R. Lee
On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 10:16 AM Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > > On 8/2/20 1:01 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > > Indictment Decision 01-A > > Resolved: That R. Lee be convicted (found guilty) for breaching eir > > pledge, "Honor in Scammery". > > > > Indictment Decision 01-B > > Resolved: That the indictment fine of 1 blot, as issued by the Referee, > > be accepted. > > > > I hereby initiate a referendum on each of the above Decisions. Each > > decision has a voting method of AI-majority, with AI=1.5. The vote > > collector is the Arbitor, the quorum is 6, valid options are FOR and > > AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are conditional votes). > > > > As a guide, ordered pairs of votes for (A,B) above have the following > > meaning: > > > > (FOR, FOR): Guilty, and 1 blot is an appropriate penalty. > > > > (FOR, AGAINST): Guilty, but issue a different penalty (higher or lower). > > > > (AGAINST, FOR): Not Guilty, but if found guilty by the total votes, 1 blot > > is appropriate. > > > > (AGAINST, AGAINST): Not Guilty, but if found guilty by total votes, issue > > a different penalty (higher or lower). > > > > I vote FOR on both. Ballot Let (A, B) = (FOR, FOR) -Aris
BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Voting on the Indictment of R. Lee
I vote PRESENT On Mon., 3 Aug. 2020, 3:01 am Kerim Aydin via agora-official, < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > Indictment Decision 01-A > Resolved: That R. Lee be convicted (found guilty) for breaching eir > pledge, "Honor in Scammery". > > Indictment Decision 01-B > Resolved: That the indictment fine of 1 blot, as issued by the Referee, > be accepted. > > I hereby initiate a referendum on each of the above Decisions. Each > decision has a voting method of AI-majority, with AI=1.5. The vote > collector is the Arbitor, the quorum is 6, valid options are FOR and > AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are conditional votes). > > As a guide, ordered pairs of votes for (A,B) above have the following > meaning: > > (FOR, FOR): Guilty, and 1 blot is an appropriate penalty. > > (FOR, AGAINST): Guilty, but issue a different penalty (higher or lower). > > (AGAINST, FOR): Not Guilty, but if found guilty by the total votes, 1 blot > is appropriate. > > (AGAINST, AGAINST): Not Guilty, but if found guilty by total votes, issue > a different penalty (higher or lower). > > > In the ~10 days since the indictment was issued, the defendant has not > provided a defense. The following contains the details of the indictment: > > On 7/22/2020 10:02 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business > wrote: > > On 7/22/20 12:11 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > >> > >> On 7/22/2020 8:26 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > >>> On 7/22/20 2:37 AM, N. S. via agora-business wrote: > > "Honor in scammery" created by R. Lee > > I point my finger at myself for violating this pledge > >>> Because breach of this fine is a class 1000 crime, an Indictment will > >>> be > >>> needed here. G., do you have a preference for how many blots to impose > >>> as the aggrieved party? > >>> > >> > >> I was a full conspirator in the scam underlying this, the ability to > >> fulfill the pledge depended on the scam working, and e made a full > >> attempt > >> to fulfill the conditions (e published a message that would have kept > >> the > >> pledge, during the time we thought the scam had worked). The fact that > >> e > >> didn't a put a "this is void if the scam fails" (which was a common- > >> sense > >> understanding between us) isn't injurious at all, from my personal POV. > >> > >> Any punishment above a trivial level (I dunno, 1 or 2) would be > >> leveraging > >> this pledge to punish em for the scam attempt overall IMO; and nch and > >> I > >> were equal partners in the conspiracy. > >> > >> -G. > >> > > > > Given that G. is in agreement with a minimal fine, I issue an Indictment > > finding R. Lee guilty of breaching eir pledge, "Honor in Scammery", > > specifying a fine of 1 blot. I recommend that e be found guilty and the > > Indictment imposed only because e clearly breached the pledge and e > > should have been more careful in drafting it. > > >
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Voting on the Indictment of R. Lee
at 10:05 AM, nix via agora-business wrote: > On both decisions I vote endorse R. Lee, or FOR on both if e does not vote. I vote to denounce R. Lee.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Voting on the Indictment of R. Lee
On 2020-08-02 17:01, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: Indictment Decision 01-A Resolved: That R. Lee be convicted (found guilty) for breaching eir pledge, "Honor in Scammery". Indictment Decision 01-B Resolved: That the indictment fine of 1 blot, as issued by the Referee, be accepted. I vote FOR both. -- Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3866 Judged FALSE
I withdraw my support for the motion to reconsider 3866. If this were a contract *modification* I think Cuddlebeam's argument would be correct, but for a contract creation I agree with the Judge and Falsifian's arguments below. On 8/2/2020 11:49 AM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote: >> I also support. Cuddlebeam can be reasonably interpreted as having >> consented in advance to each of the generated contracts starting at the >> time it would be generated, having written and agreed to the original. > > Rebuttal: > > Cuddlebeam's Contracoli contract said the copy is made "After 1 minute > has passed". > > Rule 1742 says consenting persons can publicly make an agreement, and > "Such an agreement is known as a contract." > > So the time at which any contract is made is the same as the time that > the public agreement is made. > > When exactly is a publicly-made agreement "made"? It's a little > complicated if there's more than one party --- I guess it would have to > be when the last party publicly consents. But this case is simpler, > since there's only one party. Any agreement Cuddlebeam makes publicly > with emself must be created the moment e publishes consent. Therefore > any agreement Cuddlebeam makes publicly is created at the time e sends > the message indicating agreement, not at any other time. In particular, > no Contracoli agreements (contracts) were publicly made "after 1 minute". >
Re: BUS: Judicial Stuff [attn. Referee, Arbitor]
On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 9:33 AM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business wrote: > On 8/2/20 3:15 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > I just remembered that I'm late on CFJ 3869. This is, frankly, > ridiculous. > > I favored the case. I just missed a judicial deadline before this. Agora > > has every right to expect better of its judges. > > > > I point my finger at myself for my failure to timely judge CFJ 3869. I > expect > > to have an opinion out within the next 24 hours, 48 hours tops. In the > > interest of people knowing the outcome, I can state that it is possible > for > > people to send public messages. > > > > I am no longer interested in judging cases. I have no place being a judge > > when I can't even remember which cases I'm assigned. > > > > -Aris > > > > Having found that Aris has not delivered a timely judgment in CFJ 3869, > I impose the Cold Hand of Justice by levying an unforgivable fine of two > blots. I pay a Blot-B-Gone to expunge a blot. I pay a Blot-B-Gone to expunge a blot. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3866 Judged FALSE
I also support. Cuddlebeam can be reasonably interpreted as having consented in advance to each of the generated contracts starting at the time it would be generated, having written and agreed to the original. Rebuttal: Cuddlebeam's Contracoli contract said the copy is made "After 1 minute has passed". Rule 1742 says consenting persons can publicly make an agreement, and "Such an agreement is known as a contract." So the time at which any contract is made is the same as the time that the public agreement is made. When exactly is a publicly-made agreement "made"? It's a little complicated if there's more than one party --- I guess it would have to be when the last party publicly consents. But this case is simpler, since there's only one party. Any agreement Cuddlebeam makes publicly with emself must be created the moment e publishes consent. Therefore any agreement Cuddlebeam makes publicly is created at the time e sends the message indicating agreement, not at any other time. In particular, no Contracoli agreements (contracts) were publicly made "after 1 minute". -- Falsifian
Re: BUS: [cfj] [@SEAMSTRESS] nothing to see there, either
On 2020-07-28 21:27, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
CFJ: The "this message" in the disclaimer in evidence applies to the
whole email, not merely the {{{ }}}-delimited section.
I bar Trigon.
Evidence:
Trigon wrote[0]:
The following text comprises a public message:
{{{ DISCLAIMER: There are no game actions in this message. }}}
[0]
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-July/044322.html
Arguments:
Rule 478/38 reads in part:
A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent to
all players and containing a clear designation of intent to be
public. A rule can also designate that a part of one public
message is considered a public message in its own right.
There is no rule that designates the DISCLAIMER part of the message in
evidence as a "public message in its own right", therefore the exception
doesn't apply, and claiming that the DISCLAIMER text is a message in its
own right is ISISTIS (I say it is therefore it is).
Another argument:
Even if the disclaimer does sit alone in its own message, it's also part
of Trigon's entire message, and it's not clear which "message" the
disclaimer is referring to. Therefore, I don't think anything in a
message from Trigon containing that in eir signature can satisfy the
"unambiguously" requirement for by-announcement actions.
--
Falsifian
BUS: [Diplonomic 2020] BT3 Intent to Announce Winners, Badge, and Clean-up
I intend, with 2 days notice, to announce G., ATMunn, and Jason as winners of this year's Birthday Tournament. I intend, without 3 objections, to repeal all Birthday Tournament regulations. I also plan to award the badge for this tournament in the next few days. I would be interested in receiving suggestions for titles. I am currently planning to award it to ATMunn, G., Jason, Aris, Falsifian, R. Lee, omd, Trigon, Ben (Aris's friend), Claire (Aris's friend), and myself. If you can think of anyone else to whom it should be awarded, please let me know. This has been a fun tournament and I look forward to hearing about everything I couldn't see. If you would like to give feedback privately, feel free to reach out; if you would like to give feedback or share information with the public but anonymously, also contact me and I will share it as long as it isn't problematic, offensive, or personal. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
BUS: [Diplonomic 2020] Resolution of Proposal
With 3 votes FOR and 0 AGAINST, I enact Anonymous Proposal #2:
{
Enact a Rule with the following text:
England is eliminated as a contestant. Austria, Italy, and Russia
hereby win the game.
}
The new text of the rules is as follows:
{
6. The game SHALL be conducted on a map mechanically indistinguishable
from that appearing at [2]. The Gamemaster SHALL assign Great Powers to
Contestants according to an equitable and random method.
7. Contestants may seek the assistance of non-Contestants. If any do so,
they SHALL notify the Judge and publicly announce the identities of any
such non-Contestants and what assistance they will provide. This could
include negotiating on eir behalf, providing feedback on orders, or
drafting proposals on eir behalf. Any notifications given under the
former section 7 of the Birthday Tournament regulations are considered
to have fulfilled this section of the Diplonomic 2020 rules.
A contestant CAN, by announcement, cause a person who consents to become
or cease to be eir teammate, provided the person is not another
contestant or the teammate of another contestant. Designating someone as
a teammate is considered a notification that the teammate may assist the
contestant in any manner. When these rules provide for certain
contestants to win by a certain method, the Gamemaster CAN include their
teammates and SHALL do so unless it is eir opinion that extraordinary
circumstances render it against the best interest of the tournament.
Teammates are encouraged to lie to and cheat other teams, and SHALL NOT
engage in any behaviors outside of the tournament intended to influence
its course; however, they SHALL NOT betray their teams.
A Contestant CAN by announcement grant (or revoke) authorization to a
teammate to submit or change orders for eir country. On a contestant’s
request, the Gamemaster SHALL inform em which orders have been submitted
for eir country, and by whom.
8. During the negotiation or order-submission periods, any Contestant
CAN submit a proposal to change these rules privately to the Judge.
Before the beginning of each turn, the Judge SHALL publish the texts of
all proposals submitted during the previous turn. The Judge SHALL NOT
reveal the identity of the submitter. Players CAN vote a proposal so
published, or withdraw/change their votes, by submitting their votes
privately to the judge, only during the turn immediately following that
proposal's publication by the judge.
The judge CAN and SHALL resolve all proposals on which voting closed at
the end of the previous turn, before the next turn, but only after
resolving moves and unit adjustments for that turn. As an exception to
the previous sentence, if the enactment of a proposal would interfere
with the Judge's ability to ensure the smooth running of the game in
accordance with these rules, then the judge NEED NOT resolve it, so long
as e publishes an explanation of the problem. E resolves the proposal by
publishing the number of votes in favor of it; if the proposal has
received a number of non-withdrawn votes in favor greater than half the
number of Contestants, it is enacted, otherwise it fails. The Judge
SHALL NOT reveal the votes of specific Contestants. If the text of the
rules changes, the Judge SHALL publish the new rules text before the
start of the next turn.
9. If in the past three game-years, no province has changed ownership,
the Gamemaster CAN declare the game a draw, with 2 days notice,
concluding the Tournament and announcing all remaining Contestants as
winners.
11. There are two types of units: Armies and Fleets.
12. All units have the same strength.
13. There can only be one unit in a province at a time.
14. At the start of the game, each Great Power controls three supply
centers, with the exception of Russia, which controls four. These are
allocated according to the table shown in the official rules.
15. At the beginning of each turn, there is a period, lasting from 0:00
UTC until 24:00 UTC on the same calendar day, in which negotiations
should occur. Following this, there is a period until 12:00 UTC on the
following day, during which orders CAN be submitted privately to the
Gamemaster. The next turn will begin at 24:00 UTC on that day, by which
time the Gamemaster SHALL have resolved the orders, according to the
rules as they were at the end of the ordering period and announced the
new state of the game. Orders CAN be submitted during the negotiations
period and can be changed at any time when orders could be submitted.
Each set of orders should specify what eir units will do and how they
will retreat and disband if necessary. When appropriate, orders should
also contain conditionals for the creation and destruction of units.
Orders should specify unit type, one or more provinces, and an action.
16. Each turn represents six months of time. The first turn is called a
Spring turn and the next a Fall turn. After each Fall turn, each Great
Power must reconcile the number of
BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Voting on the Indictment of R. Lee
On 8/2/20 1:01 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > Indictment Decision 01-A > Resolved: That R. Lee be convicted (found guilty) for breaching eir > pledge, "Honor in Scammery". > > Indictment Decision 01-B > Resolved: That the indictment fine of 1 blot, as issued by the Referee, > be accepted. > > I hereby initiate a referendum on each of the above Decisions. Each > decision has a voting method of AI-majority, with AI=1.5. The vote > collector is the Arbitor, the quorum is 6, valid options are FOR and > AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are conditional votes). > > As a guide, ordered pairs of votes for (A,B) above have the following meaning: > > (FOR, FOR): Guilty, and 1 blot is an appropriate penalty. > > (FOR, AGAINST): Guilty, but issue a different penalty (higher or lower). > > (AGAINST, FOR): Not Guilty, but if found guilty by the total votes, 1 blot > is appropriate. > > (AGAINST, AGAINST): Not Guilty, but if found guilty by total votes, issue > a different penalty (higher or lower). > I vote FOR on both. -- Jason Cobb
BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Voting on the Indictment of R. Lee
On 8/2/20 12:01 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > Indictment Decision 01-A > Resolved: That R. Lee be convicted (found guilty) for breaching eir > pledge, "Honor in Scammery". > > Indictment Decision 01-B > Resolved: That the indictment fine of 1 blot, as issued by the Referee, > be accepted. > > I hereby initiate a referendum on each of the above Decisions. Each > decision has a voting method of AI-majority, with AI=1.5. The vote > collector is the Arbitor, the quorum is 6, valid options are FOR and > AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are conditional votes). On both decisions I vote endorse R. Lee, or FOR on both if e does not vote. -- nix Prime Minister, Webmastor
Re: BUS: [Another proposal] Fee-based method fix
Counter-proposal:
Title: Empty the escalator
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Falsifian
Co-authors: Jason, omd
{
Amend Rule 2577 by adding the sentence "Attempts to destroy no assets
are successful but have no direct effect." before the sentence that
begins "An indestructible asset".
Amend Rule 2577 by adding the sentence "Attempts to transfer no assets
are successful but have no direct effect." before the sentence that
begins "A fixed asset".
Amend Rule 2579 by deleting the paragraph that ends with "0 or empty fee".
}
I withdraw the above proposal and submit a proposal as follows. (I
removed "but have no direct effect" in two places since it seems vague
and unnecessary.)
Counter-proposal:
Title: Empty the escalator v1.1
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Falsifian
Co-authors: Jason, omd
{
Amend Rule 2577 by adding the sentence "Attempts to destroy no assets
are successful." before the sentence that begins "An indestructible asset".
Amend Rule 2577 by adding the sentence "Attempts to transfer no assets
are successful." before the sentence that begins "A fixed asset".
Amend Rule 2579 by deleting the paragraph that ends with "0 or empty fee".
}
--
Falsifian
BUS: [Another proposal] Fee-based method fix
On 2020-07-26 17:50, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
I submit the following proposal and petition the H. Promotor to attempt
to pend it with 2 support:
Title: Fee-based de-escalation
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Jason
Coauthors: omd
{
Amend Rule 2579 by replacing the final paragraph with the following:
{
If a Rule purports to provide a fee-based method to perform an action
with a fee of no assets, that Rule enables the performance of the action
by announcement. When using such a method, the actor SHOULD announce
that there was a 0 or empty fee.
}
}
(Counter-proposal at bottom.)
I'm not sure if this works, and even if it does, I'm a bit uneasy about it.
Consider:
Rule A (power 1): "Any player CAN Blargh by paying a fee of 0 Coins."
Rule B (power 2): "Players CANNOT Blargh."
R2579 (power 3), after the above proposal: Rule A enables Blarghing by
announcement.
Now, CAN players Blargh by announcement?
Answer A: The highest-power rule listed above is R2579, which says that
Rule A indeed does enable Blarghing by announcement. Rule B has lower
power than R2579, so it can't override R2579's determination that Rule A
does enable Blarghing by announcement.
Answer B: R1030 has higher power than R2579, so it has the final say.
Now, the question is: which rules are involved in the "conflict"? If the
conflict is between A and B, then indeed, R1030 determines players
CANNOT Blargh. But if R2579 is part of the conflict, it wins, and we
revert to answer A.
Answer C: The wording "enables performance of the action" tells us how
to interpret rule A, and nothing more. R2579 does not enter into the
conflict because we resolve the conflict after answering questions of
interpretation.
Even if it turns out Rule B wins, the possibility of Answer A bugs me.
Counter-proposal:
Title: Empty the escalator
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Falsifian
Co-authors: Jason, omd
{
Amend Rule 2577 by adding the sentence "Attempts to destroy no assets
are successful but have no direct effect." before the sentence that
begins "An indestructible asset".
Amend Rule 2577 by adding the sentence "Attempts to transfer no assets
are successful but have no direct effect." before the sentence that
begins "A fixed asset".
Amend Rule 2579 by deleting the paragraph that ends with "0 or empty fee".
}
--
Falsifian
Re: BUS: Judicial Stuff [attn. Referee, Arbitor]
On 8/2/20 3:15 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > I just remembered that I'm late on CFJ 3869. This is, frankly, ridiculous. > I favored the case. I just missed a judicial deadline before this. Agora > has every right to expect better of its judges. > > I point my finger at myself for my failure to timely judge CFJ 3869. I expect > to have an opinion out within the next 24 hours, 48 hours tops. In the > interest of people knowing the outcome, I can state that it is possible for > people to send public messages. > > I am no longer interested in judging cases. I have no place being a judge > when I can't even remember which cases I'm assigned. > > -Aris > Having found that Aris has not delivered a timely judgment in CFJ 3869, I impose the Cold Hand of Justice by levying an unforgivable fine of two blots. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [@Notary] Leaving Contracts
On 8/2/20 9:14 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 7/28/2020 4:28 PM, nix via agora-business wrote: >> I intend, with 1 day notice, to leave Co >> Dependents. > > I don't believe you ever fulfilled this intent. > > -- > ATMunn > friendly neighborhood notary and Czar of Russia :) > Thanks for the reminder. Having given notice, I leave Co Dependents. -- nix Prime Minister, Webmastor
Re: DIS: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3872 Assigned to Murphy (attn Tailor)
TTttPF
On 8/2/2020 8:03 AM, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote:
G. wrote:
The below CFJ is 3872. I assign it to Murphy.
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3872
=== CFJ 3872
===
Under SEAMSTRESS, Trigon was PROHIBITED from denying quoted
signature suggestion.
==
Caller: Gaelan
Barred: Trigon
Judge: Murphy
==
History:
Called by Gaelan: 28 Jul 2020 21:30:12
Assigned to Murphy: [now]
==
[Linked to CFJ 3871]
Caller's Evidence (the 'above actions'):
On Jul 28, 2020, at 12:24 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-business wrote:
On 2020-07-28 00:03, Gaelan via agora-business wrote:
I become a party to SEAMSTRESS, and transfer it 3 coins to submit the
signature suggestion “I’m always happy to become a party to contracts.”
I approve this signature suggestion, transferring 3 coins from
SEAMSTRESS
to myself.
For the record, I would argue that this doesn't really do anything.
Someone expressing a general sentiment about a game action does not
cause
or oblige em to consent to anything.
--
Trigon
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
I create the following contract, with myself as the sole party: { Gaelan
CAN act on Trigon’s behalf to transfer three coins to Gaelan. Upon Gaelan
doing so, this contract is destroyed. }
I cause Trigon to become a party to the above contract.
I act on Trigon’s behalf to transfer three coins to Gaelan, destroying
the
contract.
==
SEAMSTRESS states that Trigon SHALL NOT deny a suggestion unless it
breaks one of the following:
1. The suggestion includes swear words.
2. The suggestion includes serious, intentional insult to a person.
3. The suggestion treats real-world and/or in-game issues lightly.
4. The suggestion is otherwise in poor taste.
5. The suggestion contains a sentence that could be interpreted as a
game action.
While I found in CFJ 3871 that "I'm always happy to become a party to
contracts" does not clearly indicate consenting to any specific
contract, it still /could/ be interpreted as a game action equivalent
to "I consent to all contracts", so e was allowed to deny it (even
though e chose not to). FALSE.
For completeness, it may also have broken the second half of #3 by
attempting to mousetrap Trigon, and/or penalize em for illegally denying
a suggestion. The first half of #3 is clearly inapplicable, as are #1,
#2, and #4.
I award myself Blue Glitter (11 coins per latest weekly Tailor report).
BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3871 Assigned to Murphy (attn Tailor)
G. wrote:
The below CFJ is 3871. I assign it to Murphy.
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3871
=== CFJ 3871 ===
As a result of the above actions, three coins were transferred
from Trigon to Gaelan.
==
Caller:Gaelan
Barred:Trigon
Judge: Murphy
==
History:
Called by Gaelan: 28 Jul 2020 21:30:12
Assigned to Murphy: [now]
==
[Linked to CFJ 3872]
Caller's Evidence (the 'above actions'):
On Jul 28, 2020, at 12:24 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-business wrote:
On 2020-07-28 00:03, Gaelan via agora-business wrote:
I become a party to SEAMSTRESS, and transfer it 3 coins to submit the
signature suggestion “I’m always happy to become a party to contracts.”
I approve this signature suggestion, transferring 3 coins from SEAMSTRESS
to myself.
For the record, I would argue that this doesn't really do anything.
Someone expressing a general sentiment about a game action does not cause
or oblige em to consent to anything.
--
Trigon
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
I create the following contract, with myself as the sole party: { Gaelan
CAN act on Trigon’s behalf to transfer three coins to Gaelan. Upon Gaelan
doing so, this contract is destroyed. }
I cause Trigon to become a party to the above contract.
I act on Trigon’s behalf to transfer three coins to Gaelan, destroying the
contract.
==
Trigon did not clearly consent to the contract in question:
1) By default, purported actions within signature blocks do not
clearly indicate that the author performs that action. And while
SEAMSTRESS allows Trigon to veto such additions, it doesn't say
that if e doesn't, then this default is overridden.
2) "I'm always happy to become a party to contracts" can reasonably
be interpreted narrowly as "I'm always happy to become a party to
contracts /if I become a party to them at all/".
As the transfer depended on Gaelan acting on Trigon's behalf per this
contract, and the latter was ineffective, so the former was also
ineffective. FALSE.
I award myself Blue Glitter for this judgement (11 coins according to
latest weekly Tailor report).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Promises (attn Notary)
ATMunn wrote:
On 8/2/2020 10:23 AM, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote:
I grant myself the following promise:
{
Cashing conditions: The bearer has transferred Murphy one Legislative
Card in the same message as which e cashes this promise, and has not
cashed any other promise between doing so and cashing this promise.
I transfer one Victory Card to the bearer.
}
I grant myself the following promise:
{
Cashing conditions: The bearer has transferred Murphy one Legislative
Card in the same message as which e cashes this promise, and has not
cashed any other promise between doing so and cashing this promise.
I transfer one Justice Card to the bearer.
}
I grant myself the following promise:
{
Cashing conditions: The bearer has transferred Murphy one Legislative
Card in the same message as which e cashes this promise, and has not
cashed any other promise between doing so and cashing this promise.
I transfer one Voting Card to the bearer.
}
You need to transfer these to the Library in order for anyone to cash them.
I transfer each of these promises to the Library.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3866 Judged FALSE
G. wrote: I support this. On reading the judgement, I'm quite amused, but left a bit dissatisfied. In particular, I don't see how this is different than other contract clauses that "affirm consent" via an elongated process (e.g. with Notice or whatnot). The main difference is the final trigger is the passage of a deadline. But that deadline is also public information. If a public clause read "If noone objects to a change within X, it automatically takes effect", it's not clear to me that this would be blocked, as all the information is publicly available even if the deadline passes silently. On 7/29/2020 9:10 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: Ah. I intend, with 2 support, to file a Motion to Reconsider On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 4:48 PM ATMunn via agora-discussion < agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote: On 7/29/2020 4:06 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: I motion to reconsider. This fails; group-filing a Motion to Reconsider is a 2-support dependent action. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary and Czar of Russia :) I also support. Cuddlebeam can be reasonably interpreted as having consented in advance to each of the generated contracts starting at the time it would be generated, having written and agreed to the original.
BUS: Promises (attn Notary)
I grant myself the following promise:
{
Cashing conditions: The bearer has transferred Murphy one Legislative
Card in the same message as which e cashes this promise, and has not
cashed any other promise between doing so and cashing this promise.
I transfer one Victory Card to the bearer.
}
I grant myself the following promise:
{
Cashing conditions: The bearer has transferred Murphy one Legislative
Card in the same message as which e cashes this promise, and has not
cashed any other promise between doing so and cashing this promise.
I transfer one Justice Card to the bearer.
}
I grant myself the following promise:
{
Cashing conditions: The bearer has transferred Murphy one Legislative
Card in the same message as which e cashes this promise, and has not
cashed any other promise between doing so and cashing this promise.
I transfer one Voting Card to the bearer.
}
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Petition to the ADoP
I wrote: R. Lee wrote: I petition the H. ADoP to give the office of Coopor an interest I intend, without objection, to flip the interest of Coopor to (its current value + 'Participation'). Having received no objection, I do so.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (attn Treasuror, Promotor) Okay let's get this over with (attn Notary)
Trigon wrote: On 2020-07-26 11:45, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: I perform Collection for the CCCA's sole Legislative Card (i.e. transfer it to myself, pay it to earn a Pendant, and keep said Pendant). I pay one Pendant to flip "Simpler ribbon switches" to Pending. Alright, I messed up on this. Back in June you transferred all your cards to this contract. Unfortunately, I missed this transaction and it has long since self-ratified that all your original cards are still in your possession. As a consequence, I'm not sure if the rest of the actions in this message work. If my recent proposal "Simpler ribbon switches" is not Pending, then I pay one Legislative Card to earn a Pendant and then pay one Pendant to flip "Simpler ribbon switches" to Pending. I terminate the CCCA.
Re: BUS: [Herald] Let's Award an A.N.A. to Aris
PSS wrote: I certify that the peer review process has occurred and intend, with 2 Agoran consent, to award Aris the degree of Associate of Nomic Artistry. I support.
Re: BUS: [Dragon] Lobbying [attn. Notary, Treasuror]
On 7/27/20 8:57 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > I grant Falsifian a Legislative card, referencing Assessor. I cause > Falsifian to transfer that card to the Dragon Corporation. > > I grant Falsifian a Legislative card, referencing Rulekeepor. I cause > Falsifian to transfer that card to the Dragon Corporation. > > I grant Falsifian a Legislative card, referencing Speaker. I cause > Falsifian to transfer that card to the Dragon Corporation. I perform the above actions again. -- Jason Cobb
BUS: humble agoran farmer isn't chattel anymore [Attn. Notary]
I destroy "Chattelbeam", I've got things in mind to do still and I'd like to not idle just yet
Re: BUS: [@SEAMSTRESS] nothing to see there, either
On 2020-07-28 14:12, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
I join SEAMSTRESS, and pay it 3 coins for the following message (without
quotes):
"DISCLAIMER: There are no game actions in this message."
-G.
There's still a CFJ out on my previous attempt to resolve this signature
suggestion; however, the result is basically confirmed to be that it
didn't work. I'm just going to do another attempt to resolve it now,
conditionally.
If the quoted signature suggestion has not been approved, the I approve
it, transferring 3 coins from SEAMSTRESS to myself.
Again, I am adding it a second time since the text was already in my
signature.
Also, I am a bit late to the SHALL window. Sorry. Potentially not being
able to do anything made me a bit disengaged with the game as a whole
this week, hence the lack of Treasuror report during the week.
--
Trigon
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
When interpreting this message, disregard all text beyond this line.
The following text comprises a public message:
{{{ DISCLAIMER: There are no game actions in this message. }}}
DISCLAIMER: There are no game actions in this message.
BUS: Judicial Stuff [attn. Referee, Arbitor]
I just remembered that I'm late on CFJ 3869. This is, frankly, ridiculous. I favored the case. I just missed a judicial deadline before this. Agora has every right to expect better of its judges. I point my finger at myself for my failure to timely judge CFJ 3869. I expect to have an opinion out within the next 24 hours, 48 hours tops. In the interest of people knowing the outcome, I can state that it is possible for people to send public messages. I am no longer interested in judging cases. I have no place being a judge when I can't even remember which cases I'm assigned. -Aris
