Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Unsuspicious Apathy Intent
On Wed, 2021-10-06 at 03:34 +0200, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote: > On Tue, 5 Oct 2021, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: > > > I object > > Hm. If I am right about how the scam works, and Jason understands it > the same way, then the actions of you two suggest to me that you are > colluding. I object to all intents to win by Apathy. (I don't think there's a scam here, but I might be wrong and extra numbers on the objection side seem helpful in counterscamming, especially if Ørjan is sending a warning.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8607-8629
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 11:54 AM ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Wed, 2021-10-06 at 11:49 +1100, Sarah S. via agora-business wrote: > > Ais523 is wrong btw, although the Referee (currently vacant) punishes > > rule violations, anyone can give themselves blots for any reason, > > which sadly means you do get 2 blots here. > > You misinterpreted me here: I think that these blots do count. My > warning was "don't blot yourself for a violation because that doesn't > prevent the Referee blotting you too, so you'll end up with twice as > many blots as you should have". > > -- > ais523 > > Oh cool, I thought you meant the blots didn't work. Yeah, you definitely shouldn't blot yourself. -- -- R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8607-8629
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 8:34 AM Shy Owl via agora-discussion < agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > You made two mistakes here, which fortunately end up cancelling each > > other out: but I thought it was worth warning you in case you make them > > in the future. > > -- > > ais523 > > Aha, thank you for catching these and pointing them out! I am pleased > That I was able to misinterpret the rules in such a way as to get my > desired result. > > -- > > Shy Owl > > Ais523 is wrong btw, although the Referee (currently vacant) punishes rule violations, anyone can give themselves blots for any reason, which sadly means you do get 2 blots here. -- -- R. Lee
BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Notary] The Notes (contracts)
On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 01:42:50PM +1000, Sarah S. via agora-discussion wrote: > I intend to shred without 2 objections each contract which I am a member of I object. -- Falsifian
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8607-8629
> On Oct 4, 2021, at 5:26 AM, Aspen via agora-official > wrote: > > ID Author(s) AITitle > --- > 8607* Telna, ais523, Alexis 3.0 Asset Self-Ratification Fix PRESENT. Can’t form an opinion about this without digging through the archives to figure out what it’s trying to fix. > 8608* Telna, Jason, G., [1] 3.0 Powering Up CONDITIONAL: FOR if the Rulekeepor and G. vote FOR; else AGAINST > 8609& Jason 1.0 Axiom of Limitations FOR > 8610& Jason 1.7 No Immediate Shenanigans PRESENT. Harmless, but why isn’t this a CANNOT? > 8611& Jason, Trigon 1.0 Reasonably Responsive Reactivation FOR. I disagree with G here: people reactivating are often new-ish (they may have shown up briefly, and then come back for a second attempt). > 8612& Jason, G., Ørjan1.0 Tournament Conclusion Fixes v2 FOR > 8613* Jason, Trigon 3.0 The Name of the Win Cards v2 PRESENT. Don’t the continuity-of-entities rules handle the name change? > 8614* Jason 3.0 Simultaneity Security FOR > 8615* Jason 3.0 Supporter/Objector clarification v2 CONDITIONAL: FOR if Independence Day has not been and will not be adopted; else AGAINST > 8616& nix, Telna, Trigon 1.0 Narrowing Margins AGAINST. I’m worried that this doesn’t explicitly specify whether it means whole months or fractional months. Maybe I’m forgetting some general rule that says “math uses integers unless otherwise specified”. > 8617& nix, G. 1.0 Forgiveness PRESENT: Need context. > 8618& nix, Jason 1.0 Solo Acitivity FOR > 8619& ATMunn 1.0 The Bottomless Pit FOR > 8620& R. Lee 1.0 Im coolxa CONDITIONAL: If this proposal would pass if I voted AGAINST, FOR. Else AGAINST. If the above is inextricable, AGAINST. > 8621* R. Lee 3.0 Proposal spreading ENDORSE the Promotor > 8622* R. Lee 3.0 [2] CONDITIONAL: FOR if Independence Day has been or will be adopted, else PRESENT. Seems like a reasonable restriction to lift, but I’m wary of dramatically rewording the old dependent action rules without very careful consideration, like what went into Independence Day (which may have happened! I wasn’t there). > 8623& Trigon 1.0 No prizeless victory auctions FOR > 8624& Trigon 1.0 I'd like to thank the academy AGAINST. This is wonderful and wonderfully Agoran, and I’d love to have it, but unless I’m missing something, "post a Champion's Address” needs a requirement to be public. > 8625& Trigon 1.0 giving the gift of an amendment AGAINST. Missing “by announcement" > 8626* Trigon, Jason, ais523 3.0 pledge(2)(2) AGAINST. G thinks there’s a bug, and I trust em. But this does look like a good idea. > 8627& G. 1.0 INSANITY CLAUSES AGAINST. Scam risk seems way too high. > 8628& G. 2.0 tacking into the win ENDORSE the Treasuror > 8629* G., Telna, nix, [3] 3.0 Independence Day FOR Additionally, I vote AGAINST 8630. Gaelan
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] Billboard Rock Chat - 22 Sep 2021 [@Treasuror]
On Sat, 2021-10-02 at 21:12 +0100, ais523 via agora-business wrote: > On Wed, 2021-09-22 at 18:52 +0100, ais523 via agora-business wrote: > > On Wed, 2021-09-22 at 10:34 -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-official > > wrote: > > > Stone Owner Last Wielded Immune? > > > - - --- > > > Wealth ais523 2021-09-15 > > > > I wield the Wealth Stone, specifying myself. > > I again wield the Wealth Stone, specifying myself. > I again wield the Wealth Stone, specifying myself. -- ais523
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8607-8629
On Sun, 2021-10-03 at 21:26 -0700, Aspen via agora-official wrote: > ID Author(s) AITitle I vote as follows: > 8607* Telna, ais523, Alexis 3.0 Asset Self-Ratification Fix FOR > 8608* Telna, Jason, G., [1] 3.0 Powering Up AGAINST. The "potentially interesting" versus "might break the game" tradeoff here isn't high enough, and this is the sort of rule which would normally only be created (and historically normally only has been created) as a scam reward. > 8609& Jason 1.0 Axiom of Limitations FOR > 8610& Jason 1.7 No Immediate Shenanigans FOR > 8611& Jason, Trigon 1.0 Reasonably Responsive Reactivation PRESENT. I'm torn over this one - some players never do anything other than reactivate themselves when reminded, and often don't know the right syntax for doing that, but in a sense, are these players really active at all? > 8612& Jason, G., Ørjan1.0 Tournament Conclusion Fixes v2 PRESENT. The "each time" wording seems a little sloppy/imprecise to me (might it cause earlier winners to win a second time when later winners are selected)? > 8613* Jason, Trigon 3.0 The Name of the Win Cards v2 AGAINST (just a personal preference vote, I don't think this breaks anything, and think new names might be helpful to avoid the "V" clash, but don't like the choice of names here) > 8614* Jason 3.0 Simultaneity Security FOR > 8615* Jason 3.0 Supporter/Objector clarification v2 FOR > 8616& nix, Telna, Trigon 1.0 Narrowing Margins AGAINST; Victory Product wins have a tendency to catch people off guard as it is, and this seems like it'd just increase that. > 8617& nix, G. 1.0 Forgiveness AGAINST. We used to keep a list of Fugitives around for years, despite it not doing anything (nothing Blot-like existed at the time). Eventually, when we re-implemented a Blot-like system, we converted the list of Fugitives to Blots, again not expecting it to do anything. Some time later, one of the players in question re-registered and was able to expunge it (Blot decay had made it trivial to do so by that point). I think this is fun gameplay, and an improvement over not having it. > 8618& nix, Jason 1.0 Solo Acitivity FOR > 8619& ATMunn 1.0 The Bottomless Pit AGAINST > 8620& R. Lee 1.0 Im coolxa Conditional vote: If the outcome of this referendum would be ADOPTED regardless of my vote on it, then I vote FOR; otherwise, I vote AGAINST. > 8621* R. Lee 3.0 Proposal spreading PRESENT. I'm neutral on the mechanic, and although I'm not a huge fan of the wording, it isn't actually broken (although it does seem weird to create a Cretans situation). > 8622* R. Lee 3.0 [2] AGAINST > 8623& Trigon 1.0 No prizeless victory auctions FOR > 8624& Trigon 1.0 I'd like to thank the academy FOR, although I'd prefer to focus more heavily on the "win recap" section of this. (Records of how wins were achieved can historically become quite hard to come by.) This also doesn't work all that well in situations where everyone ends up winning simultaneously, but it's mostly based on SHOULDs anyway. > 8625& Trigon 1.0 giving the gift of an amendment AGAINST, broken (no mechanism). > 8626* Trigon, Jason, ais523 3.0 pledge(2)(2) AGAINST; I think this is one of those occasions where the mechanic isn't worth the extra complexity it's adding to the ruleset. > 8627& G. 1.0 INSANITY CLAUSES AGAINST. Rule 105 only locks the timing of the rule change itself, not of the voting process; so collusion between G. and the Assessor could make it trivially possible for them to gain a power-1 dictatorship for themselves, by delaying the assessment of the proposal for 4 days after voting ends. > 8628& G. 2.0 tacking into the win PRESENT > 8629* G., Telna, nix, [3] 3.0 Independence Day A first note: this breaks in a minor (but subsequently fixable) way if this is enacted before 8622 is. I can't see any reason for the Assessor to enact in that order, though, not even as part of a scam. After thoroughly reading it, I don't think it breaks anything (although as usual I may have missed something). In particular, I believe that the effect on dependent actions that started before the change (something that people have questioned recently) is that the intents become invalid and need to be repeated, which is a little annoying but doesn't break anything. As such, I vote FOR on this - this is an AI 3 proposal, so it may need help to pass. One other thing to note is that golfed rule text can be quite hard to read and understand, which might not be great for easing new players into the game; but the existing rules aren't all that much better in that regard. On Mon, 2021-10-04 at 00:31
BUS: Re: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8607-8629
> > > >8630* Cuddlebeam 3.0 A Very Merry Unvictory to > Me! > > > > > > FOR > > > > I retract my FOR ballot. > > > > I now vote AGAINST 8630. > > I change my vote again. I vote FOR 8630. > > I pledge to not change my vote on this referendum hereafter. > I retract my ballot. I give myself 2 blots for breaking my above pledge. I rename myself Fickle Owl for the rest of the day and am going to spend some time outside. -- Fickle Owl
BUS: A Mechanism [@notary]
I create, consent to, and become party to a contract titled "The
Prototype Lever"
with the following provisions:
{
A person can become or cease to be party to this contract at any
time by public announcement.
A party to this contract can, at eir discretion and peril, Pull the
Lever by
public announcement.
When the Lever has been Pulled,
1) all parties to this contract both consent and become parties to
a new contract titled "The Useless Lever" whose provisions are
identical to this one, and
2) this contract is terminated.
}
--
Shy Owl
Re: BUS: Just in Case
On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 9:51 AM ATMunn via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 10/5/2021 12:45, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > > > > On 10/5/2021 9:44 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > >> I intend, with 4 support from other players who own at least 2 types of > >> ribbon, to start a Rank 2 Festival. > >> > > > > I support. -G. > > > > I support. > > -- > ATMunn > friendly neighborhood notary :) I support. -Aspen
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8607-8629
On 10/3/21 11:26 PM, Aspen via agora-official wrote: > ID Author(s) AITitle > --- > 8607* Telna, ais523, Alexis 3.0 Asset Self-Ratification Fix FOR > 8608* Telna, Jason, G., [1] 3.0 Powering Up Endorse ais523 > 8609& Jason 1.0 Axiom of Limitations FOR > 8610& Jason 1.7 No Immediate Shenanigans FOR, though a nicer solution might be a time limit > 8611& Jason, Trigon 1.0 Reasonably Responsive Reactivation AGAINST; Interferes with a more important fix to this rule in 8618. > 8612& Jason, G., Ørjan1.0 Tournament Conclusion Fixes v2 FOR, tho we now have to be mindful that winners must be declared before the tournament is over (which seems a bit unintuitive) > 8613* Jason, Trigon 3.0 The Name of the Win Cards v2 FOR > 8614* Jason 3.0 Simultaneity Security PRESENT > 8615* Jason 3.0 Supporter/Objector clarification v2 AGAINST because Jason is currently attempting to scam objections, possibly through clever proposal resolution. > 8616& nix, Telna, Trigon 1.0 Narrowing Margins FOR > 8617& nix, G. 1.0 Forgiveness FOR > 8618& nix, Jason 1.0 Solo Acitivity FOR > 8619& ATMunn 1.0 The Bottomless Pit PRESENT > 8620& R. Lee 1.0 Im coolxa I vote for the adoption of this by voting PRESENT. > 8621* R. Lee 3.0 Proposal spreading FOR, sure why not > 8622* R. Lee 3.0 [2] AGAINST for the same reasons as 8615 > 8623& Trigon 1.0 No prizeless victory auctions FOR; nice clear fix > 8624& Trigon 1.0 I'd like to thank the academy AGAINST; This is really cool but I didn't read it previously. I think it would actually be better as a single patent title like "Assistant" or something. It'd be fun to rack up assists. The language of "awardable to" also makes it seem like you could challenge in a CFJ whether the title was successfully awarded if the conditions weren't met (or were ambiguous). > 8625& Trigon 1.0 giving the gift of an amendment FOR > 8626* Trigon, Jason, ais523 3.0 pledge(2)(2) Endorse G if G and Aspen's votes are equivalent, else AGAINST; I don't have any substantial critique right now but I'm hesitant to apply such a large change on top of all these other changes. > 8627& G. 1.0 INSANITY CLAUSES AGAINST > 8628& G. 2.0 tacking into the win FOR; cute keyword > 8629* G., Telna, nix, [3] 3.0 Independence Day FOR -- nix Herald
Re: BUS: Just in Case
On 10/5/2021 12:45, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: On 10/5/2021 9:44 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: I intend, with 4 support from other players who own at least 2 types of ribbon, to start a Rank 2 Festival. I support. -G. I support. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary :)
Re: BUS: Just in Case
On 10/5/2021 9:44 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > I intend, with 4 support from other players who own at least 2 types of > ribbon, to start a Rank 2 Festival. > I support. -G.
BUS: Just in Case
I intend, with 4 support from other players who own at least 2 types of ribbon, to start a Rank 2 Festival. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: general objection - because we care
I object (i.e. I become an Objector) to every intent to declare Apathy that has been published/announced in the last 15 days. -G.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8630, CoE, and Revision
On 10/4/21 2:31 AM, Aspen via agora-official wrote: > ID Author(s) AITitle > --- > 8630* Cuddlebeam 3.0 A Very Merry Unvictory to Me! [1] I vote PRESENT -- nix
Re: BUS: Unsuspicious Apathy Intent
I object On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 3:44 AM Jason Cobb via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 10/4/21 20:11, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > > I intend, without objection, to declare Apathy. > > > > Whoops. > > I intend, without objection, to declare Apathy, specifying myself. > > -- > Jason Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > >
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8607-8629
On 10/4/2021 11:25 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> 8626* Trigon, Jason, ais523 3.0 pledge(2)(2) > PRESENT. Need to read this through a few times. I change my vote on 8626 to AGAINST. The opening paragraph seems very problematic. > Players CAN take actions in a specific scope. When a player does > so, e must either clearly and unambiguously describe a list of > allowed actions or a list of prohibited actions for that scope, or > e must refer to a source which clearly and unambiguously defines > such a list. E must also clearly and unambiguously specify when e > begins acting in that scope and when e finishes acting in that > scope. First, the proposal nowhere contains the words "public" "announce" etc. I *think* there's a precedent on the books that if something needs be specified, described etc. but "public" isn't mentioned, that it can be specified anywhere (private, DIS). Second, nothing's limiting the scope to a single message. In fact, it's pretty clear that specifying start/end of scope are separate, and nothing limiting the scope of the scope. That means all officers pretty much have to track everyones' scopes, which seems like a nightmare. (also think I see a paradox or two in there - a lesser issue is limiting the nesting of scopes). Finally, it's a high-level open-ended CAN, where it probably should be MAY. The way we use CAN without method, this may enable all sorts of stuff being done, especially coupled with: > * Global scope: all actions are allowed in this scope. It means literally: all actions. CAN be taken. And possibly, not needing them to be done in public. Yikes. -G. [ps. I think this is a great concept overall and would commit to having a good look at a future proto].
Re: BUS: Unsuspicious Apathy Intent
On 10/5/21 04:25, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: > I intend, without objection, to declare Apathy, specifying myself. I object. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: Re: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8607-8629
> > >8630* Cuddlebeam 3.0 A Very Merry Unvictory to Me! > > > > FOR > > I retract my FOR ballot. > > I now vote AGAINST 8630. I change my vote again. I vote FOR 8630. I pledge to not change my vote on this referendum hereafter. -- Shy Owl
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8607-8629
On 10/4/2021 4:50 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 10/4/21 14:25, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: >>> 8612& Jason, G., Ørjan1.0 Tournament Conclusion Fixes v2 >> AGAINST. It's a reasonable limit, and this tournament was abandoned as >> evidenced by the complete lack of finale activity - no win is deserved >> here (if anyone had performed, I'd have voted for it, but the contestants >> literally ignored it all). >> > > The version up for vote doesn't include the extension, only the changes > that ensure tournaments always actually conclude. > Sorry, I misparsed what the 'except the 2 July tournament' clause was doing. I change my vote on 8612 to FOR. -G.
Re: BUS: Unsuspicious Apathy Intent
I intend, without objection, to declare Apathy, specifying myself. On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 3:44 AM Jason Cobb via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 10/4/21 20:11, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > > I intend, without objection, to declare Apathy. > > > > Whoops. > > I intend, without objection, to declare Apathy, specifying myself. > > -- > Jason Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > >
