BUS: [Ribbon] Payment in kind
I award Jason a White Ribbon. Just in case that didn't work: I act on my own behalf to award Jason a White Ribbon. -- Falsifian
BUS: Re: OFF: [Ministor] Ministor's Report REVISION 1
On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 11:50 AM nix via agora-official wrote: > > +-+ > |Ministor's Report| > +-+ > > Date of this report: 2021-06-14 18:47 UTC > > Notices > === > > Legacy players now grant themselves a victory point. The Card is the > only thing raffled. > > Player Ministry Focuses > === > > Focus grants a monthly bonus: > > * Unfocused - nothing, just the default > * Compliance - grant yourself a Justice card > * Legislation - grant yourself a Legislative card > * Participation - grant yourself a Voting card > * Legacy - grant yourself a Victory Point and be entered in a monthly >raffle for a Victory Card (resolved in a separate email) > > You can Plan To Flip your own focus by announcement - it will be flipped > at the start of the next month. > > Current Focuses > > Compliance (1): Cuddlebeam > > Legacy (4): ATMunn, Falsifian, G., nix > > Legislation (6): Aenet, Aris, Gaelan, Jason, Trigon, seventeenMachine CoE: My focus is still participation. I planned to flip to legislation, but it won't take effect till next month. -Aris
BUS: Re: OFF: [Ministor] Ministor's Report
On Mon, 2021-06-14 at 15:19 +, nix via agora-official wrote: > Unfocused (4): R. Lee, ais523, cuddlybanana, omd I plan to flip my focus to Legislation. -- ais523
BUS: Promises
I create a promise in cuddlebeams possession "Cashing conditions: CB transfers r. Lee 250 coins. R. Lee transfers CB a voting card and a justice card"
BUS: Re: OFF: [Ministor] Ministor's Report REVISION 1
I plan to flip my focus to legacy On Tue, Jun 15, 2021, 4:50 AM nix via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > +-+ > |Ministor's Report| > +-+ > > Date of this report: 2021-06-14 18:47 UTC > > Notices > === > > Legacy players now grant themselves a victory point. The Card is the > only thing raffled. > > Player Ministry Focuses > === > > Focus grants a monthly bonus: > > * Unfocused - nothing, just the default > * Compliance - grant yourself a Justice card > * Legislation - grant yourself a Legislative card > * Participation - grant yourself a Voting card > * Legacy - grant yourself a Victory Point and be entered in a monthly >raffle for a Victory Card (resolved in a separate email) > > You can Plan To Flip your own focus by announcement - it will be flipped > at the start of the next month. > > Current Focuses > > Compliance (1): Cuddlebeam > > Legacy (4): ATMunn, Falsifian, G., nix > > Legislation (6): Aenet, Aris, Gaelan, Jason, Trigon, seventeenMachine > > Participation (1): Murphy > > Unfocused (4): R. Lee, ais523, cuddlybanana, omd > > > > -- > nix > Webmastor, Ministor, Herald > >
BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Notary] The Notes (pledges & promises) [@Treasuror]
On Mon, 2021-06-14 at 18:08 +0100, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Fri, 2021-05-28 at 20:42 -0400, ATMunn via agora-official wrote: > > 9 instances of the following promise exist: > > > > "Two by two" created by Murphy > > Bearer: the Library > > Text: > > > > Cashing conditions: > > > > * If the bearer is me, then no other conditions need to be met. > > > > * The bearer specifies exactly one type of Card. > > > > * The bearer has transferred two of that Card to me earlier in the > >same message, without cashing any of my other promises or reducing > >my instances of that Card in between. > > > > * Before that transfer, I had less than four of that Card. > > > > * I now have at least four of that Card. > > > >If the bearer is me, then I do nothing; otherwise, I pay a set of four > >of that Card, then transfer half the resulting products to the bearer. > > > > On Sun, 2021-06-13 at 23:19 +, Trigon via agora-official wrote: > > ASSET BALANCES (self-ratifies) > > > > > > Player(+a) cn wcjclcvcwpbgpdxv > > == == > > Murphy3043 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 > > On Tue, 2021-06-15 at 02:29 +1000, Telna via agora-business wrote: > > I transfer Murphy one Legislative card. > > If the following three actions would cause Murphy to transfer five > Pendants to me, then I perform them, otherwise I do not perform them: > > * I transfer Murphy two Legislative Cards. > * I take a "Two by two" promise from the Library. > * I cash a "Two by two" promise, specifying Legislative Cards. > > (I believe they do cause Murphy to transfer me five Pendants, based on > the messages quoted above.) TTttpF -- ais523
Re: BUS: [Treasuror] A Completed Set
On 2021-06-15 02:55, Telna via agora-business wrote: Having gathered four Justice Cards (one from Welcome Package, one from Cuddlebeam, one from Murphy, one from G.), I pay a set of 4 Justice Cards to receive 10 Blot-B-Gones. I transfer 2 Blot-B-Gones to G.
BUS: [Treasuror] A Completed Set
Having gathered four Justice Cards (one from Welcome Package, one from Cuddlebeam, one from Murphy, one from G.), I pay a set of 4 Justice Cards to receive 10 Blot-B-Gones.
BUS: (@treasuror) transfer and grant
I transfer a Justice Card to Telna. I grant myself a brand-new Victory Point (focus). -G.
BUS: Trading Card Minmaxing feat. an old promise
I transfer Murphy one Legislative card. I take the promise "Legislative for Justice v2", created by Murphy, from the Library and cash it. For reference: "Legislative for Justice v2" created by Murphy Cashing conditions: The bearer has transferred or granted 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, and Murphy has at least one Justice Card. I transfer one Justice Card to the bearer.
BUS: humble agoran farmer focuses [attn. Treasuror]
I grant myself one Justice Card because I'm in Compliance
Re: BUS: EVERYTHING IS FINE
I transfer to Telna 300 coins and one Justice Card and cash that Promise. On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 5:36 PM Telna via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I create the following promise, titled "Another VC on the wall": > - > Cashing conditions: The bearer has transferred or granted Telna 300 > coins and one Justice 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, and Telna has at least one Victory Card. > > I transfer one Victory Card to the bearer. > - > > I transfer the promise "Another VC on the wall" to Cuddlebeam. >
BUS: Re: OFF: [Ministor] Ministor's Report
On 6/14/2021 8:19 AM, nix via agora-official wrote: > Legacy (3): ATMunn, Falsifian, nix COE on the Ministor's Report: I changed my focus to legacy here: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2021-May/046487.html and your random draw missed me (from discord): > !choose ATMunn Fasifian nix Thanks! -G.
BUS: EVERYTHING IS FINE
I create the following promise, titled "Another VC on the wall": - Cashing conditions: The bearer has transferred or granted Telna 300 coins and one Justice 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, and Telna has at least one Victory Card. I transfer one Victory Card to the bearer. - I transfer the promise "Another VC on the wall" to Cuddlebeam.
Re: BUS: Focusing [attn. Treasuror]
On 6/13/21 8:20 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > Pursuant to my focus in Legislation, I grant myself one Legislative Card. > > [I don't think I've done this yet this month. Please yell at me if I'm > wrong.] > Nevermind, this failed. I had already done it. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: BUS: Player Continuity + Registration (ATTN: Registrar)
On 6/14/2021 3:09 AM, Telna via agora-business wrote: On 2021-06-14 17:07, Telnaior via agora-business wrote: Hi, My new preferred name is Telna and my new email is agorate...@iprimus.com.au. Please understand that I continue to be the same person as when I was previously a player. Confirming the above. I register as a Player. I cause myself to receive a Welcome Package. Welcome Telna! I would cause you to receive a Welcome Package but it seems you're one step ahead of me. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary :)
BUS: (@Promotor) Re: [Prime Minister] Distribution of Proposal 8573
On 6/8/2021 8:30 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Title: The Device > Adoption index: 1 > Author: G. > Coauthor: Murphy If the above proposal is still in the proposal pool, I withdraw it. -G.
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3916 Assigned to ais523
On 6/14/2021 3:08 AM, ais523 via agora-business wrote: > On Sun, 2021-06-13 at 15:47 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-official > wrote: > So a summary of my findings: > - it is the case that petitions are directed at an office, so you can > deputise to answer them > - but Murphy failed to clearly take the action of directing a petition > at an office (it's clear what action e was trying to take – directing a > petition at a person – but that action doesn't have any defined rules > effect, so it doesn't create a duty to respond) > - so no obligation was created, and so no deputisation, FALSE. > > I judge CFJ 3916 FALSE. > I intend to motion to reconsider this with 2 support. Frankly, this seems unfair and like trying to have it two ways. Let's say I had been PM. And let's say I failed to respond to the petition. Do you really have any doubt that a finger pointed at me for failing to respond to the petition wouldn't have succeeded? We'll never know of course. But if I'd defended myself by saying "hey, that wasn't directed at me as PM, it was directed at me as a person" that wouldn't have held any water - the answer would be "you were the PM, you are you, there's no ambiguity, what's the problem?" If I had been the PM, I would have been forced to respond. But since I wasn't the PM, it's somehow retroactively ambiguous? Punished if I am, punished if I'm not. -G.
BUS: Okay CB
I transfer to Cuddlebeam 1 Victory Card
BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3916 Assigned to ais523
On Sun, 2021-06-13 at 15:47 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > The below CFJ is 3916. I assign it to ais523. > > CFJ, barring G.: G.'s attempt to deputise for Prime Minister on or > about Tue, 8 Jun 2021 05:39:36 -0700 was effective. There are two sub-issues to this CFJ: a) does Rule 2143 mean "petition a person who holds at least one office", or "petition an office, delivering the petition to the officeholder as the representative of that office"? b) if Rule 2143 does require a particular office to be referenced, does Murphy's message succeed in identifying the Prime Minister as the office in question? At the heart of issue a), this is a dispute about what Rule 2143 is referring to when it says "A player CAN, by announcement, petition a specified officer to take a specified action; the officer SHALL publicly respond to the petition in a timely fashion."; is "officer" being used in the sence of a "person who holds at least one office", or is it being used in the sense of "you can petition an office by petitioning the officer"? It's clear (rule 2160p1) that if the action is linked to the player, rather than the office, the deputisation wouldn't work. As for b): to me, the plain language of the wording of Murphy's message is "I petition G., who is possibly the Prime Minister". If we imagine a slight change in the message, "I petition G.; I know e's an officer, but can't remember whether it's Prime Minister or Arbitor", I wouldn't expect this to be a substantial change in the meaning of Murphy's message as it related to the petitioning. (I note in passing that G.'s statement that e couldn't respond to the petition, because e wasn't the prime minster, is wrong; maybe e couldn't fulfil a duty to respond, but it's perfectly possible to publicly respond to other people's petitions by posting an email containing a response. There isn't a defined action of "responding to a petition".) Rule 478 says "Where the rules define an action that a person CAN perform "by announcement", that person performs that action by unambiguously and clearly specifying the action". Murphy's message unambiguously and clearly specified an attempt to petition G., but I don't think it's identifying an attempt to petition a particular office sufficiently clearly (it's *mentioning* an office but there's no implication in the sentence that that office is the target of a petitioning; the mention of the Prime Minster looks more like "I think this petitioning is legal because G. is the Prime Minister, and it needs to be aimed at an officer" rather than "I aim this petition at the office of the Prime Minister, which happens to be held by G."). So the action that Murphy describes (petitioning a person) is not the action of petitioning that's defined in the rules, and thus it fails to create a rules-defined duty. So, we can see a link between points a) and b) here. If petitions are directed at a specific person (who happens to hold at least one office), then the petitioning worked, but it isn't possible to deputise to answer. If petitions are directed at an office, the petitioning failed. In either case, the CFJ is FALSE. It's still interesting to know which of these two scenarios actually happened, though (with the understanding that it doesn't affect the outcome of the CFJ). Looking at the uses of "office" vs. "officer" in the rules (in situations where the rules want to talks about officers in general): R2162: "one office" … "that officer" R1607,2137,1051: "one office" … "its holder" R2164: "appoint and remove officeholders" R1006: "An officer is the holder of an office, who may be referred to by the name of that office." R2630: "each officer" … "eir own office" R2154: "a specified elected office" … "holder of that office" R2573: "the holder of a specified elected office" R2160: "an action ordinarily reserved for an office-holder as if e held the office" R2138: "each office's Officeholder" (referring to the switch, not the officer!) R2143: "a specified officer" … "the officer" (what this CFJ is about) R2603: "which would otherwise lack an officer" (presumably this isn't supposed to trigger when there's a defined officer, but it's vacant) R2496: "the officer associated with the condition" (followed by a list of office names associated with conditions) R2581: "any officer" … "not holding that office" R2582: "the indicated officers" … "each indicated officer" Most of the rules are very clear on the office vs. Officeholder switch vs. person distinction. However, some are less clear, and give a window into what the game custom surrounding references to "officers" is. In particular, the wording in R2630 and R2581 is fairly persuasive to me that the custom is that "officers" are colloquially considered to be a different concept from the individual people who hold the offices; G.- as-Prime-Minister is a different "officer" from G.-as-Arbitor. Otherwise, they would effectively imply that nobody could hold more than one office,
Re: BUS: Player Continuity + Registration (ATTN: Treasuror)
On 2021-06-14 17:09, Telna wrote: On 2021-06-14 17:07, Telnaior via agora-business wrote: Hi, My new preferred name is Telna and my new email is agorate...@iprimus.com.au. Please understand that I continue to be the same person as when I was previously a player. Confirming the above. I register as a Player. I cause myself to receive a Welcome Package. Sorry, forgot one other thing: I Plan to Flip my Ministry Focus to Ministry of Compliance. (Why does Ministry of Economy not have a Grant?)
Re: BUS: Player Continuity + Registration (ATTN: Registrar)
On 2021-06-14 17:07, Telnaior via agora-business wrote: Hi, My new preferred name is Telna and my new email is agorate...@iprimus.com.au. Please understand that I continue to be the same person as when I was previously a player. Confirming the above. I register as a Player. I cause myself to receive a Welcome Package.
BUS: Player Continuity
Hi, My new preferred name is Telna and my new email is agorate...@iprimus.com.au. Please understand that I continue to be the same person as when I was previously a player.
