BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8607-8630
On 2021-10-04 15:26, 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 FOR 8609& Jason 1.0 Axiom of Limitations FOR 8610& Jason 1.7 No Immediate Shenanigans PRESENT 8611& Jason, Trigon 1.0 Reasonably Responsive Reactivation PRESENT 8612& Jason, G., Ørjan1.0 Tournament Conclusion Fixes v2 FOR 8613* Jason, Trigon 3.0 The Name of the Win Cards v2 FOR 8614* Jason 3.0 Simultaneity Security FOR 8615* Jason 3.0 Supporter/Objector clarification v2 PRESENT 8616& nix, Telna, Trigon 1.0 Narrowing Margins AGAINST (this needs to start at a higher value if we do this) 8617& nix, G. 1.0 Forgiveness FOR 8618& nix, Jason 1.0 Solo Acitivity FOR 8619& ATMunn 1.0 The Bottomless Pit AGAINST (this should be a contract) 8620& R. Lee 1.0 Im coolxa AGAINST (why do you do these things) 8621* R. Lee 3.0 Proposal spreading ENDORSE the Promotor 8622* R. Lee 3.0 [2] AGAINST 8623& Trigon 1.0 No prizeless victory auctions PRESENT 8624& Trigon 1.0 I'd like to thank the academy AGAINST (agree with more whimsy, but getting victory-related patent titles for not winning is super bad and I wish dumb bribery proposals didn't do this already) 8625& Trigon 1.0 giving the gift of an amendment AGAINST 8626* Trigon, Jason, ais523 3.0 pledge(2)(2) AGAINST 8627& G. 1.0 INSANITY CLAUSES AGAINST 8628& G. 2.0 tacking into the win FOR 8629* G., Telna, nix, [3] 3.0 Independence Day FOR 8630* Cuddlebeam 3.0 A Very Merry Unvictory to Me! [1] FOR
BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3933 Assigned to G.
I deliver the following judgement on 3933:
Arguments
The Caller has laid it out well; the use of the term "deactivate" in the
context of the activity switch does not turn "deactivate" itself into a
term of art unique to that switch. Applying the common definition of
"dactivate" to "turn off" in the context of the device makes sense when
used in *that* context. I have nothing to add to the caller's arguments
concerning "on behalf", it seems like a perfectly clear chain of
rules-based CANs leading to the action succeeding. I judge TRUE.
On 10/6/2021 8:59 PM, Telna via agora-official wrote:
> The below CFJ is 3933. I assign it to G.
>
> =
>
> The Device is off.
>
> Called by ais523: Wed 06 Oct 2021 11:41:35
>
> =
>
> On 2021-10-06 22:41, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
>> I act on behalf of the Device to cause em to deactivate emself.
>>
>> CFJ: The Device is off.
>>
>> Evidence: the first sentence of this message, the fact that the Device
>> was on prior to this message, and:
>>
>> Excerpt from rule 2654:
>> {{{
>>When the device is on:
>>[...]
>>A Device CAN activate or deactivate emself by announcement.
>> }}}
>>
>> Excerpt from rule 2655:
>> {{{
>>The Mad Engineer CAN act on behalf of the device to take any
>>action that the device may take, and SHALL act on behalf of the
>>device to ensure that the device fulfills all of its duties.
>> }}}
>>
>> Excerpt from rule 2646:
>> {{{
>>Activity is a player switch tracked by the Registrar, with values
>>Active (default) and Inactive. To flip a player's activity to
>>active (inactive) is to activate (deactivate) em.
>> }}}
>>
>> Excerpt from rule 2466:
>> {{{
>>When a rule allows one person (the agent) to act on behalf of
>>another (the principal) to perform an action, that agent CAN
>>perform the action if it is POSSIBLE for the principal to do so,
>>taking into account any prerequisites for the action.
>>[...]
>>Allowing a person to act on behalf of another person is secured
>>at power 2.0.
>> }}}
>>
>>
>> Arguments:
>>
>> There are two issues here, related to the fact that the Device is a
>> switch, not a player or a person.
>>
>> The first is: what happens when you act on behalf of a non-person
>> object? Our current "act on behalf" rules cover only the case of a
>> person acting on behalf of another person, and this is an attempt to
>> act on behalf of something else. However, a power-1 rule states that
>> this attempt is possible (with a CAN), and no higher-power rule seems
>> to prevent the attempt (acting-on-behalf is secured at power 2 but only
>> when acting on behalf of a person). So I conclude that the attempt to
>> do this necessarily works (in the sense of it being a possible action),
>> but am not sure what effect that action would have if performed (if
>> indeed it does anything at all).
>>
>> The second is: assuming the act-on-behalf works similarly to acting on
>> behalf of a person, what does it mean for the Device to deactivate
>> emself? Rule 2646 gives us a definition of "deactivate" in the context
>> of Agora, but the definition is specific to players. Does this mean
>> that we should fall back to the normal English meaning of "deactivate"
>> when the ruleset applies the rules to other sorts of objects? If so,
>> how does that meaning apply to Agoran switches?
>>
>> The device has two possible states, "on" and "off". It seems pretty
>> plausible that "deactivate" is a synonym for "turn off". On the other
>> hand, it seems a bit weird to describe the act of turning off a switch
>> as deactivating the *switch*; normally the word would be used to
>> describe the act of turning off the switch as deactivating whatever it
>> is that the switch controls. (Although I can see a pretty plausible
>> argument that Agora's Device is a switch that controls itself! Or
>> possibly, it's a switch that controls rule 2654.)
>>
>>
>> I know that we've been talking about the Device as "this is inevitably
>> going to become a player at some point and Agora can't be stopped from
>> making it happening", but the Device being a non-player has created
>> some interesting gameplay too.
>>
Re: BUS: Just in Case
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 7:39 PM Falsifian via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 12:44:47PM -0400, 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. > > > > -- > > Jason Cobb > > > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > > I support. (I haven't really been following, but if someone wants to > start a festival, then sure.) I do so. Let the festivities commence! -Aspen >
Re: BUS: Just in Case
On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 12:44:47PM -0400, 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. > > -- > Jason Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason I support. (I haven't really been following, but if someone wants to start a festival, then sure.) -- Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Unsuspicious Apathy Intent
> I object to all intents to win by Apathy. I do too. -- Falsifian
Re: BUS: Unsuspicious Apathy Intent
I object. -- Falsifian On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 10:25:25AM +0200, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: > 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 > > > >
Re: BUS: Unsuspicious Apathy Intent
On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 08:11:54PM -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > I intend, without objection, to declare Apathy. > > -- > Jason Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason I object. -- Falsifian
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8630, CoE, and Revision
> ID Author(s) AITitle > --- > 8630* Cuddlebeam 3.0 A Very Merry Unvictory to Me! [1] I vote AGAINST this proposal. (Ratification is dangerous.) -- Falsifian
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8607-8629
I vote as follows: > ID Author(s) AITitle > --- > 8607* Telna, ais523, Alexis 3.0 Asset Self-Ratification Fix endorse Telna > 8608* Telna, Jason, G., [1] 3.0 Powering Up AGAINST > 8609& Jason 1.0 Axiom of Limitations endorse Jason > 8610& Jason 1.7 No Immediate Shenanigans PRESENT > 8611& Jason, Trigon 1.0 Reasonably Responsive Reactivation AGAINST. (Conflicts with 8618, which looks more important.) > 8612& Jason, G., Ørjan1.0 Tournament Conclusion Fixes v2 AGAINST. (It sounds like one one person could win multiple times from the same tournament, if it's determined multiple times that they won the tournament.) > 8613* Jason, Trigon 3.0 The Name of the Win Cards v2 AGAINST. It's unclear whether this affects plural words. > 8614* Jason 3.0 Simultaneity Security PRESENT > 8615* Jason 3.0 Supporter/Objector clarification v2 AGAINST. Too much going on right now. > 8616& nix, Telna, Trigon 1.0 Narrowing Margins AGAINST. (This would pretty much ensure economic victories every four months, which seems too frequent to me. My personal preference would be for victories in general to be somewhat rarer than they are now.) > 8617& nix, G. 1.0 Forgiveness PRESENT > 8618& nix, Jason 1.0 Solo Acitivity endorse nix > 8619& ATMunn 1.0 The Bottomless Pit AGAINST. (Unnecessary. If you want to meta-game, find a way to do it that doesn't add rule text.) > 8620& R. Lee 1.0 Im coolxa AGAINST > 8621* R. Lee 3.0 Proposal spreading PRESENT > 8622* R. Lee 3.0 [2] AGAINST > 8623& Trigon 1.0 No prizeless victory auctions endorse Trigon > 8624& Trigon 1.0 I'd like to thank the academy AGAINST, per nix. (I like the idea, though!) > 8625& Trigon 1.0 giving the gift of an amendment AGAINST, per Ørjan > 8626* Trigon, Jason, ais523 3.0 pledge(2)(2) AGAINST, per G.. (Comment: "Economic scope" seems to be missing an "only".) > 8627& G. 1.0 INSANITY CLAUSES AGAINST > 8628& G. 2.0 tacking into the win endorse G. > 8629* G., Telna, nix, [3] 3.0 Independence Day AGAINST. Too much going on right now. -- Falsifian
Re: BUS: Focusing [attn. Stonemason, Treasuror]
On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 10:16:08AM -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > I grant myself a Legislative Card pursuant to my focus. > > I wield the Concentration Stone, specifying myself. > > -- > Jason Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason I grant myself a Victory Point. -- Falsifian
Re: BUS: (@Jumble, @Cuddlebeam, @ais523) [Referee] statements sought
Honorable Referee: My crimes against Jumble cannot be considered just crimes against them, but also crimes against humanity, the concept of life, existence and Peter Suber himself. Such an epic perpetrated by myself against Good cannot be left to be overlooked - it is in fact, mathematically impossible. It is a crime of the highest order, and is therefore worthy of a proportional punishment, consisting of, but not limited to: forced labor in the Agoran gulag, sitting in morning rush traffic, construction of such a gulag, jail meal consisting only of pineapple pizza, watching unskippable Youtube ads and 5 pushups. On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 4:48 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 10/6/2021 7:25 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > PENDING FINGERS (does not self-ratify) > > == > > ais523 22-Sep > > "I point my finger at Cuddlebeam for violating rule 1742 by failing to > > act in accordance with the contract "Jumblebeam Deal". Specifically, e > > transferred eir last Victory Card, despite previously having been > > granted a Victory Card by the Ministor via Rule 2624, and Jumble not > > yet having transferred it to emself." > > > > Cuddlebeam 06-Oct > > "I Point my Finger at myself, Cuddlebeam, for violating "Jumblebeam Deal" > > in that I SHALL NOT Flip my Focus except as it states." > > > > Cuddlebeam 06-Oct > > "I Point my Finger at myself, Cuddlebeam, for violating "Jumblebeam Deal" > > in that I SHALL NOT grant my Focus Grant except as it states." > > As the above issues are contract-centered, I invite parties to the > contract, finger-pointers, or other interested third parties, to submit > briefs as to the harm caused by any contract breaches cited above. > > I've noted ais523's statement below: > > On 9/22/2021 11:10 AM, ais523 via agora-business wrote: > > Note that this is probably a bug in the contract – the card that > > triggers the clause was granted at a time when Cuddlebeam wasn't the > > Puppet, so it probably wasn't intended to be transferred to Jumble; and > > it ended up getting transferred to someone else and there's been a > > reset since anyway. But the wording of the contract seems to treat this > > as an apporpriate trigger to prevent Cuddlebeam transferring eir last > > Victory Card anyway. So this is more of a "technical breach of the > > rules" which I'm reporting because I thought it was interesting, rather > > than a violation of the spirit behind the contract. > >
BUS: Re: @Arbitor CFJ Re: Benbot² travels in!
On 10/3/2021 9:19 PM, Sarah S. via agora-business wrote: > On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 12:46 AM ais523 via agora-business < > agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On Sun, 2021-10-03 at 09:39 -0400, BenjaminFrancis Rodriguez via agora- >> business wrote: >>> This email declares (soon to be) player Benbot² intention to join the >>> game under Alias Benbot² >> >> By the "(soon to be)", do you mean that you're joining immediately and >> are referring to the time immediately after your message? Or do you >> mean that you're planning to join in, e.g., a few days from now? >> >> -- >> ais523 >> >> > Seems ambiguous. I CFJ: Benbot is a player. > > I disfavor this cfj. -G.
BUS: (@Jumble, @Cuddlebeam, @ais523) [Referee] statements sought
On 10/6/2021 7:25 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > PENDING FINGERS (does not self-ratify) > == > ais523 22-Sep > "I point my finger at Cuddlebeam for violating rule 1742 by failing to > act in accordance with the contract "Jumblebeam Deal". Specifically, e > transferred eir last Victory Card, despite previously having been > granted a Victory Card by the Ministor via Rule 2624, and Jumble not > yet having transferred it to emself." > > Cuddlebeam 06-Oct > "I Point my Finger at myself, Cuddlebeam, for violating "Jumblebeam Deal" > in that I SHALL NOT Flip my Focus except as it states." > > Cuddlebeam 06-Oct > "I Point my Finger at myself, Cuddlebeam, for violating "Jumblebeam Deal" > in that I SHALL NOT grant my Focus Grant except as it states." As the above issues are contract-centered, I invite parties to the contract, finger-pointers, or other interested third parties, to submit briefs as to the harm caused by any contract breaches cited above. I've noted ais523's statement below: On 9/22/2021 11:10 AM, ais523 via agora-business wrote: > Note that this is probably a bug in the contract – the card that > triggers the clause was granted at a time when Cuddlebeam wasn't the > Puppet, so it probably wasn't intended to be transferred to Jumble; and > it ended up getting transferred to someone else and there's been a > reset since anyway. But the wording of the contract seems to treat this > as an apporpriate trigger to prevent Cuddlebeam transferring eir last > Victory Card anyway. So this is more of a "technical breach of the > rules" which I'm reporting because I thought it was interesting, rather > than a violation of the spirit behind the contract.
BUS: (@treasuror) Re: [Ministor] Foci
On 10/6/2021 7:10 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > ATMunn, Falsifian, Trigon, cuddlybanana, nix As the Ministor's monthly legacy grant, I grant a Victory Card to Trigon. [Using a random roll that can be viewed on the discord botspam channel] =The Ministor
BUS: Focusing [attn. Stonemason, Treasuror]
I grant myself a Legislative Card pursuant to my focus. I wield the Concentration Stone, specifying myself. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: Re: DIS: Re: humble agoran farmer tests something
On 10/6/21 08:22, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion wrote: > test > > On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 2:11 PM Cuddle Beam wrote: > >> this is just some mundane email stuff >> I object. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: Re: OFF: [Mad Engineer] Intent to Invent
On 10/6/21 07:25, ais523 via agora-official wrote:
> The Device is On.
>
> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule
> "The Device" by appending the following as a list item to the "When the
> device is on:" list:
> {{{
>Any player CAN refile a Device without objection, specifying a new
>title; the Device is retitled to the specified title by this Device.
> }}}
>
> [A tough one this week, as evidenced by the relative lack of
> suggestions – most combinations are either redundant or obviously
> uninteresting. This one looks like it might at least be capable of
> doing something, and is unlikely to break things.]
>
I support.
--
Jason Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: humble agoran farmer plays Necropotence
With all due respects to Jumble who sees our contract as more of a way to screw me than a deal at this point- I Plan to Flip my Focus to Compliance. I Grant my Ministry's Focus to myself. I Point my Finger at myself, Cuddlebeam, for violating "Jumblebeam Deal" in that I SHALL NOT Flip my Focus except as it states. I Point my Finger at myself, Cuddlebeam, for violating "Jumblebeam Deal" in that I SHALL NOT grant my Focus Grant except as it states.
BUS: [CFJ] Making the TotD's life a little harder [@TotD]
I act on behalf of the Device to cause em to deactivate emself.
CFJ: The Device is off.
Evidence: the first sentence of this message, the fact that the Device
was on prior to this message, and:
Excerpt from rule 2654:
{{{
When the device is on:
[...]
A Device CAN activate or deactivate emself by announcement.
}}}
Excerpt from rule 2655:
{{{
The Mad Engineer CAN act on behalf of the device to take any
action that the device may take, and SHALL act on behalf of the
device to ensure that the device fulfills all of its duties.
}}}
Excerpt from rule 2646:
{{{
Activity is a player switch tracked by the Registrar, with values
Active (default) and Inactive. To flip a player's activity to
active (inactive) is to activate (deactivate) em.
}}}
Excerpt from rule 2466:
{{{
When a rule allows one person (the agent) to act on behalf of
another (the principal) to perform an action, that agent CAN
perform the action if it is POSSIBLE for the principal to do so,
taking into account any prerequisites for the action.
[...]
Allowing a person to act on behalf of another person is secured
at power 2.0.
}}}
Arguments:
There are two issues here, related to the fact that the Device is a
switch, not a player or a person.
The first is: what happens when you act on behalf of a non-person
object? Our current "act on behalf" rules cover only the case of a
person acting on behalf of another person, and this is an attempt to
act on behalf of something else. However, a power-1 rule states that
this attempt is possible (with a CAN), and no higher-power rule seems
to prevent the attempt (acting-on-behalf is secured at power 2 but only
when acting on behalf of a person). So I conclude that the attempt to
do this necessarily works (in the sense of it being a possible action),
but am not sure what effect that action would have if performed (if
indeed it does anything at all).
The second is: assuming the act-on-behalf works similarly to acting on
behalf of a person, what does it mean for the Device to deactivate
emself? Rule 2646 gives us a definition of "deactivate" in the context
of Agora, but the definition is specific to players. Does this mean
that we should fall back to the normal English meaning of "deactivate"
when the ruleset applies the rules to other sorts of objects? If so,
how does that meaning apply to Agoran switches?
The device has two possible states, "on" and "off". It seems pretty
plausible that "deactivate" is a synonym for "turn off". On the other
hand, it seems a bit weird to describe the act of turning off a switch
as deactivating the *switch*; normally the word would be used to
describe the act of turning off the switch as deactivating whatever it
is that the switch controls. (Although I can see a pretty plausible
argument that Agora's Device is a switch that controls itself! Or
possibly, it's a switch that controls rule 2654.)
I know that we've been talking about the Device as "this is inevitably
going to become a player at some point and Agora can't be stopped from
making it happening", but the Device being a non-player has created
some interesting gameplay too.
--
ais523
Mad Engineer
