Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8373-8376
On Sun, 3 May 2020 at 14:32, Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > 8375p Alexis 2.0 Patent Title Unswap > I vote AGAINST due to the author's recent Glitter abuse - this is more > glitter for more titles. > I change my vote on all proposals currently in their voting period, except for this one, to AGAINST. Notice of Honour: -1: G., for putting a minor rule abuse ahead of fixing a broken historic record +1: R. Lee, for rejoining as an active participant. I deregister. -Alexis
Re: BUS: Wooden gavel intent
On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 12:54, Jason Cobb via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 4/29/20 12:33 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > > I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to award Falsifian the 2019 Wooden Gavel > > for eir judgements of CFJs 3726-3727. > > > > I support. > I support. (Isn't this only a partial series of CFJs? Actually it's not really a series at all, more of a sequence.)
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Doing some public good
On Tue, 28 Apr 2020 at 13:37, Reuben Staley via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 4/28/20 3:50 AM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > > I deputize for Notary and publish trigon's report, above, as my Notary > > Report for this week. > > > > In all seriousness, I do intend to actually do the job in future, but of > > course you may contest me in an election for my scummy report thievery > > Oof. > Notice of Honour: +1 R. Lee (scummy report thievery) -1 R. Lee (scummy report thievery) -Alexis
Re: BUS: A few orders of business [attn Arbitor, Herald]
On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 20:56, Reuben Staley via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > With that out of the way, I would also like to have an office again. It > appears that all the offices are filled, but if anyone has an office > they don't really want to keep up, I would not mind taking care of it. > PSS offered Treasuror up; I intend, with 2 support, to initiate an election for Treasuror. I won't resolve this intent and become a candidate, but you can. (You have to become a candidate in the same message to start an election with support.) -Alexis
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8373-8376
On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 20:04, Aris Merchant via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran > Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal > pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the > quorum is 7, 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 > --- > 8373e Jason, Aris 1.0 Auction resolution fixes > AGAINST > 8374p Alexis 1.0 Re-Officialization > FOR > 8375p Alexis 2.0 Patent Title Unswap > FOR > 8376* Falsifian3.0 Additional fire retardant > FOR -Alexis
BUS: Additional Official Patent Titles
Proposal: Re-Officialization (AI=1, Chamber=Participation)
{{{
Append the following to the list of official Patent Titles in Rule 2581
(Official Patent Titles):
{
- Left in a Huff, awardable by the Registrar to any player deregistered by
a Writ of FAGE, where the Cantus Cygneus that gave rise to the Writ was due
to a genuine, serious grievance.
- {Three, Six, Nine, Twelve} Months Long Service, each awardable by that
ADoP to a player who has served the appropriate number of months in a
single office without significant dereliction of duty.
}
}}}
-Alexis
BUS: Patent Title Fix
Proposal: Patent Title Unswap (AI=2, Chamber=Participation)
{{{
Revoke the Patent titles "Prince of Agora" and "Princess of Andorra" from
Alexis, and award em the Patent titles "Prince of Andorra" and "Princess of
Agora".
[At some point, these appear to have been swapped in Herald's reports.
Since the report was ratified since the mistake was made, a proposal is
necessary to fix them.]
}}}
-Alexis
BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3831 assigned to Alexis
On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 at 16:05, Kerim Aydin via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > [Let's let the expert decide]. > > The below CFJ, called by Aris on 24 Apr 2020 23:35:08 -0700, is CFJ 3831. > I assign it to Alexis. > > On 4/24/2020 11:35 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 7:47 PM Edward Murphy wrote: > >> This is a Notice of Honour: > >> -1 kudo: ATMunn, randomly chosen zombie > >> +1 kudo: PSS, testing the finger-pointing rules in an interesting way > > > > > > *sigh* > > > > I CFJ "Murphy published a valid Notice of Honour today." > The requirement in Rule 2150 is, as Aris claims, to publish a notice announcing which player gains and loses karma. The karma system is similar to an earlier system which used kudos, and an even earlier one which used props, so there is clearly some similarity there. As two hypotheticals, we can consider whether Muphy's notice would have worked if e had specified a) some rule-defined asset/switch or b) a word that doesn't have Agoran connotations at all. If Murphy's notice had specified ±1 coin, then it clearly would fail. The notice would be specifying who gains and loses coins, something quite well-defined, rather than karma. If it had instead specified ±1 XP, then I think it would also fail. It is not clear, in the context of the current Agoran rules, what "XP" is (and to my knowledge, it has never been defined in a way that would make it make any sense here; if that is not the case, for the sake of this judgment, assume that it is). But it seems to me that it would be unreasonable to interpret "XP" as "karma" in this context. So the only way that Murphy's notice could succeed would be if "kudo"'s history in some way privileged it to operate as a substitute for karma. This might be possible if there had been a custom regarding it, or if the use of kudos was recent history. But neither of these is the case, and the modern playerbase cannot be expected to know the full details of Agora's history. So I rule that this is FALSE as the notice does not clearly specify that it is manipulating karma. I award myself Blue Glitter for this judgment. I self-file a motion to reconsider. I judge it FALSE again. I award myself Blue Glitter again. -Alexis
BUS: Expungement
I expunge a blot from myself. -Alexis
BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3828 Assigned to Alexis
On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 at 12:08, Kerim Aydin via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > The below CFJ is 3828. I assign it to Alexis. > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3828 > > === CFJ 3828 === > > A recent rule named "A coin award" was enacted, increased the > number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself. > > == > I recuse myself from this case. (Sorry, but I don't think it's appropriate for me to judge this one.)
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8368-8372
On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 at 21:29, Aris Merchant via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran > Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal > pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the > quorum is 7, 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 > --- > 8368j G. 1.7 Explicit Accusations > FOR > 8369* Aris 3.0 Emergency Termination Notice > FOR > 8370f Aris 2.0 Announced Petitions > AGAINST > 8371f Aris 2.0 Petitio Exitus > AGAINST > 8372* Alexis, G., Falsifian3.0 Auction Overhaul > FOR -Alexis
BUS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] The Short Logical Ruleset - 8 Apr 2020
On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 17:45, Jason Cobb via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > Rule 2601/1 (Power=1) > Blink > > If this is the only paragraph in this rule, and it has been at > least one week since this rule was last amended, then any player > CAN Close the Eye by announcement. When that happens, this rule > repeals itself. > CoE: (Also to the most recent FLR): R. Lee closed the eye on March 12. -Alexis
BUS: [Proposal] Auction Overhaul
Auction Overhaul (AI=3, coauthors=G., Falsifian)
{{{
Terminate all auctions; this overrides any rule that would prevent an
auction from being terminated.
Repeal Rule 2545 (Auctions).
Repeal Rule 2549 (Auction Initiation).
Repeal Rule 2550 (Bidding).
Repeal Rule 2551 (Auction End).
Repeal Rule 2552 (Auction Termination).
Repeal Rule 2584 (Free Auctions).
Amend Rule 1885 (Zombie Auctions) to read as follows:
{
A zombie auction is an Agoran decision to award ownership of zombies to
players. A zombie is eligible for auction if its master switch is set to
Agora and has a resale value greater than 0.
While there is at least one zombie eligible for auction, and no zombie
auction is currently in progress (initiated but not resolved), the
Registrar CAN initiate a zombie auction. For a zombie auction, the vote
collector is the Registrar, the quorum is 0, the voting method is auction,
and the valid options are the zombies a) that were eligible for auction at
its initiation and b) whose master switch has not changed in the meanwhile.
A list of the zombies eligible for auction (the "default priorities"),
ordered by the date they became a zombie with the newest first, is an
essential parameter of the decision.
In a timely fashion after a zombie auction is resolved, each winner CAN and
SHALL pay for eir prize by paying a fee equal to eir valid bid in the
auction; when e does so, the prize's master switch is set to em. E CANNOT
and NEED NOT do so if, before e does, the zombie's master switch changes.
In a timely fashion after the beginning of each Agoran month, the Registrar
SHALL either initiate a zombie auction, or if there are no zombies eligible
for auction, announce this fact.
}
Amend Rule 2528 (Voting Methods) by replacing {which must be AI-majority,
instant runoff, or first-past-the-post} with {which must be AI-majority,
instant runoff, first-past-the-post, or auction} and by replacing
{
2. The valid conditional votes, as defined by rules of power at
least that of this rule; and
3. For an instant runoff decision, the ordered lists of entities.
4. For any other decision, the valid options.
}
with
{
2. For a decision other than an auction, the valid conditional votes,
as defined by rules of power at least that of this rule;
3. For an instant runoff decision, the ordered lists of entities;
4. For an auction decision, the positive integers (termed "bids"); and
5. For a decision other than an instant runoff decision or an
auction, the valid options.
For an auction, the minimum number of options is one; for any other
decision, it is two.
}
[I would like to make it so that voting methods don't need to be defined at
power 3, but that's beyond the scope of this proposal. It'll be part of my
administrative reform series I imagine.]
Amend Rule 683 (Voting on Agoran Decisions) by appending
{
The above notwithstanding, an entity CANNOT withdraw a PRESENT vote on an
auction
decision, nor withdraw any other vote except to change eir vote to PRESENT
or to one with an equal or higher bid.
An entity CAN, by announcement at any time prior to the end of an auction
decision's voting period, designate a list of entities as eir priorities
for that decision, or change eir previously-designated priorities. An
announcement that an entity is designating priorities for a decision is
unsuccessful unless it indicates, clearly but not necessarily explicitly,
that e is changing the previous ones.
}
[Since priorities work only for winners, there is much less need to enforce
validity on the designations, and this will work nicely enough for now. The
requirement for explicitness about changing is to line it up with how
voting works in general; a second set of votes does not replace the first
unless it does so.]
Amend Rule 955 (Determining the Will of Agora) by appending the following
to the list:
{
4. For an auction, the outcome is an association of voters (winners) to
valid options (prizes) determined as follows. For each voter (with a valid
vote) in descending order of bids (breaking ties in favour of the voter
whose valid vote was submitted first), of the remaining prizes, e is
assigned the first as-yet unassigned prize that 1) appears first in eir
priorities for that decision, if any, otherwise 2) the one that appears
first in the decision's default priorities, if any, otherwise 3) one chosen
by the vote collector by announcement. Continue in this manner until all
prizes have been assigned or the list of voters is exhausted. Any remaining
voters do not win any prize, and any remaining prizes are excess lots.
}
[This allows people to target specific zombies rather than fighting over
which ones they don't want. The bug around zombies that stop being eligible
is fixed by them being considered no longer valid options.]
Amend Rule 107 (Initiating Agoran Decisions) by replacing {The vote
collector for a decision with less than two options CAN and SHALL end the
voting period
BUS: [Attn: Referee] Expungement
I expunge a blot from myself.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Prime Minister] Awards Month
On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 19:12, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion < agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 16:30, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via > agora-business wrote: > > > The required time period not having passed, I rule these finger pointings > > to be shenanigans without prejudice to a later finger pointing. > > > > d'oh > I point my finger at the Tailor and Associate Director of Personnel for failing to respond to the Prime Minister's petition to proceed to award Patent Titles. Notice of Honour: +1: PSS, for eir careful investigations as Referee -1: G., for dismissing petitions as unimportant -Alexis
BUS: Re: OFF: [Prime Minister] Awards Month
On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 21:34, Aris Merchant via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > LET IT FURTHERMORE BE KNOWN that I hereby charge and petition the > responsible officers of my cabinet, namely the Honorable Promotor, > Arbitor, Tailor, and Associate Director of Personnel, to initiate > forthwith proceedings to award the patent titles they are responsible > for. > I point my finger at each of the named officers for failing to respond to this petition in a timely fashion. (Apologies if I missed any actually taking action.) -Alexis
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8366-8367
On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 01:04, Rebecca via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I vote FOR both proposals > -- > From R. Lee > I endorse R. Lee on both proposals. -Alexis
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3826 Judgement
On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 at 23:46, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I'm not actually convinced by the region example; I initially read that the > other way, and on rereading think it's ambiguous. Still, the apple example > seems sound, and I find that a good enough as an analogue. Good judgement! > > -Aris > I'm not sure I agree. In my view, there is a clear distinguishing factor. In the apple example, the "cannot" appears after the "any", while in the rule at issue, it appears before. This is a critical distinction. The corresponding apple phrase would be "A worker CAN dispose of a shipment if a recipient cannot eat any apple within". If I may make appeals to the principles of first-order logic, (using words instead of symbols, for the sake of those not used to logic notation), suppose we let P(x) mean "x can be eaten" and Q mean "the shipment can be disposed of" (with x ranging over all apples in the shipment). Then the judge's example is clearly equivalent to "If there exists an x such that P(x) is false, then Q". This is logically equivalent to "If, for all x, P(x) is true, then Q". But by contrast, if we have the statement "If there does not exist an x such that P(x) is true, then Q", the logical equivalent is "If, for all x, P(x) is false, then Q." Breaking down the English of "if a recipient cannot eat any apple within", "eat any apple within" is a relative clause that is negated by "cannot". In my opinion, this most strongly resembles "If there does not exist an x such that P(x) is true". To interpret it otherwise requires either changing the way that "cannot" binds or interpreting "any" as a universal (for all) quantifier, rather than existential (there exists) quantifier. I contend that this is not the most straightforward way to convert the English into the language of logic, and once we have done so, the conclusion of TRUE on the CFJ must follow. I intend, with 2 support, to file a motion to reconsider CFJ 3826; the above needs to be addressed, at minimum.
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] March Zombie Auction
On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 20:42, Aris Merchant via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 5:41 PM Aris Merchant > > wrote: > > > > On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 5:40 PM Aris Merchant > > wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 5:39 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-business > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 20:36, Aris Merchant via agora-business < > > > > agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 5:32 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/4/2020 5:21 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 5:20 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On 4/2/2020 6:58 PM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > > > > > > >>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:21 PM Alexis Hunt via > agora-business < > > > > > > >>> agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 19:04, Kerim Aydin via agora-business > < > > > > > > >>>> agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> On 4/1/2020 9:40 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> On 4/1/2020 2:10 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> I bid 347 coins in the current zombie auction. > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> I withdraw my bid. I bid 83 coins. > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> I bid 1 coin. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> As do I. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>> as do i > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I bid 2 coins. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I bid 20 coins. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I bid 1 coin. > > > > > > > > > > I bid 1 coin. > > > > > > > > > > -Aris > > > > > > > > > > > > > I bid 1 coin. > > > > > > I bid 1 coin. > > > > I bid 20 coins. > > > > -Aris > > I bid 20 coins. > > -Aris > I bid 2 coins.
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] March Zombie Auction
On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 20:36, Aris Merchant via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 5:32 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business > wrote: > > > > > > On 4/4/2020 5:21 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 5:20 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > >> > > >> On 4/2/2020 6:58 PM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > > >>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:21 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-business < > > >>> agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 19:04, Kerim Aydin via agora-business < > > >>>> agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On 4/1/2020 9:40 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On 4/1/2020 2:10 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I bid 347 coins in the current zombie auction. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I withdraw my bid. I bid 83 coins. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I bid 1 coin. > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> As do I. > > >>>> > > >>> as do i > > >>> > > >> > > >> I bid 2 coins. > > > > > > > > > I bid 20 coins. > > > > > > > > > > I bid 1 coin. > > I bid 1 coin. > > -Aris > I bid 1 coin. -Alexis
BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Rewards for Proposals 8357-8365
On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 11:40, Jason Cobb via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > For the adoption of Proposal 8357, I grant G. (11-0)*1.0=11 coins. > > For the adoption of Proposal 8358, I grant Jason (10-0)*2.0=20 coins. > > For the adoption of Proposal 8360, I grant Alexis (11-0)*3.0=33 coins. > > I award myself red and orange glitter for this proposal. -Alexis
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] March Zombie Auction
On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 19:04, Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 4/1/2020 9:40 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On 4/1/2020 2:10 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> > >> I bid 347 coins in the current zombie auction. > >> > > > > I withdraw my bid. I bid 83 coins. > > > > I bid 1 coin. > As do I.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Honour Roll
CoE: Trigon is registered and didn't have eir karma adjusted. Admitted. Incoming. On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 20:21, Alexis Hunt via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Herald's Weekly report > > Date of Last Report: 14 Mar 2020 > Date of This Report: 01 Apr 2020 > > Karma Entity > - -- > > +6 G. <= SHOGUN > > - ABOVE +4 STAND THE SAMURAI > > +4 Aris > +4 twg > +4 Jason > +2 omd > +2 Alexis > +1 Trigon > +1 Warrigal > =0 Jacob Arduino > -1 Bernie > -1 o > -1 Gaelan > -1 Agora > -2 Rance > -3 Falsifian > -3 Murphy > -4 CuddleBeam > -4 Baron von Vaderham > -4 D. Margaux > > - BELOW -4 LIE THE GAMMAS > > (none currently) <= HONOURLESS WORM > > - -- > All other entities have 0 Karma. > > Notices of Honour: > -- > > Quartery Adjustment, April 01, 2020 > Jacob Arduino: -1 -> 0 > Trigon: +3 -> +1 > Agora: == -1 > > R. Lee (31 Mar 2020) > +1 Jason (for putting to rest a piece of ancient history) > -1 Aris (for abusing a motion to reconsider to extend a deadline) > > Alexis (31 Mar 2020) > +1 Jason (for putting to rest a piece of ancient history) > -1 Aris (for abusing a motion to reconsider to extend a deadline) > > [New Week 30-Mar] > > [New Week 23-Mar] > > Falsifian (21 Mar 2020) > +1 Alexis (Helping the Registrar keep more accurate information) > -1 Alexis (Punishing me for an error I could not have known about >without spending unreasonable effort verifying the records >I inherited from the previous Registrar. (I first joined >Agora long after the event in question.)) > > Telnaior (21 Mar 2020) > +1 Alexis (for catching something small but important that was missed >in the history books) > -1 Falsifian (for stuffing up the player list) > > G. (20 Mar 2020) > +1 Jason (for losing a chance to judge a case older than emself) > -1 Aris (for jumping onto an assigned case) > > R. Lee (16 Mar 2020) > +1 Aris (because [e]'s epic) > -1 Falsifian (for self ratifying that I am not a player, three times) > > Alexis (16 Mar 2020) > +1 Aris (for having to wait so long for a peer review) > -1 Alexis (for the delay) > > [New Week 16-Mar] > > Falsifian (15 Mar 2020) > +1 G. (keeping things moving) > -1 Falsifian (Ineffective Registrar) > > Jason (14 Mar 2020) > +1 Murphy (seems like e should be higher than -4) > -1 G. (down with the Shogun!) > > [time of last report] > > [New Week 09-Mar] > > G. (02 Mar 2020) > +1 Gaelan (showing willingness to work with the geezers) > -1 nch (sitting at +1 for no particular reason) > > [New Week 02-Mar] > > Gaelan (01 Mar 2020) > +1 Warrigal (submitting his contract as 72-character-wide Markdown) > -1 CuddleBeam (for making me handle emoji (fine, would’ve needed to >do that if 天火狐 ever showed up again) and a value >of N that can’t be stored as number in any reasonable >computer system) > > [New Week 24-Feb] > > [New Week 17-Feb] > [time of last report] > > Aris (13 Feb 2020) > +1 Jason (having to deal with the mess) > -1 Aris (messing up horrifically *twice*) > > [New Week 10-Feb] > > twg (9 Feb 2020) > +1 Gaelan (helpfully providing a ruleset at a time when several large >changes are going on simultaneously) > -1 Jason (delaying ruleset publication at said time) > > [New Week 3-Feb] > > Gaelan (31 Jan 2020) > +1 Alexis (for responsibly pointing out that something's broken, instead of >practicing the all-too-common Agoran Shove Under the Rug) > -1 Jason (for a proposal that requires an intimate familiarity with the > existing > rule to figure out what the hell it does, without an explanatory > note > in the proposal) > > twg (31 Jan 2020) > +1 Gaelan (I knew what was going to happen and it was still one of the most > hilarious things I've seen in Agora) > -1 Baron von Vaderham (presently designated karma source) > > Alexis (29 Jan 2020) > -1 Alexis (for making the Promotor do eir work for em) > +1 Aris (for having to do Alexis's work) > > [New Week 27-Jan] > > Jason (20 Jan 2020) > -1 Gaelan (for attempting to remove our H. Karma source) > +1 Baron von Vanderham (for being a good Karma source) > > Alexis (20 Jan 2020) > +1 twg (for eir impassioned defence of the core of Nomic gameplay.) > -1 Aris (for eir persistent opposition to the core of Nomic gameplay.) > > G. (20 Jan 2020) > -1 G. (for robbin
Re: BUS: [Registrar] March zombie auction status
On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 18:27, D. Margaux via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I flip my master switch to myself > I bid 39 coins. -Alexis
BUS: Notice of Honour
+1: Jason for putting to rest a piece of ancient history -1: Aris for abusing a motion to reconsider to extend a deadline -Alexis
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] March Zombie Auction
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 18:12, Jason Cobb via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 3/29/20 5:54 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: > > I bid 14 coins. > I bid 100 coins.
BUS: Voting
I vote FOR all proposals currently in their voting periods.
Re: BUS: Emergency Fix and Expansion
It's all right, I just noticed I literally completely forgot about Herald duties last week. On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 16:36, Aris Merchant via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I retract my prior proposal entitled "Fix Emergencies". I submit the > following proposals. I apologize for the delay in my report; I hope to > have it out soonish. > > -Aris > --- > Title: Fix Emergencies > Adoption index: 3.0 > Author: Aris > Co-authors: Alexis > > Amend the rule entitled "Eclipse Light" by changing the text > "If the Prime Minister has not Extended the Emergency in the past > month, any player CAN cause this rule to repeal all Emergency > Regulations and then itself." > to read > "If there is an Emergency Regulation that has existed for at least a > month > and the Prime Minister has not Extended the Emergency in the past month, > any > player CAN, by announcement, cause this rule to repeal all Emergency > Regulations and then itself." > --- > Title: Mint Regulations > Adoption index: 3.0 > Author: Aris > Co-authors: > > Amend Rule 2166, "Assets", by changing the text "A rule defined asset is > public" to read "An asset defined by rule or regulation is public". > > Amend Rule 2464, "Tournaments", by appending the text > "A Tournament's regulations collectively have Mint Authority.". > > If there is a Rule entitled "Eclipse Light", amend it by adding, after > the list item beginning "Create, destroy, or transfer assets", a new > list item in the same format as the rest of the list with the text > "Collectively, exercise Mint Authority" > > --- > Title: Emergency Termination Notice > Adoption index: 3.0 > Author: Aris > Co-authors: > > [This gives everyone a bit of warning before someone goes and repeals the > Emergency Regulations, and gives the PM time to potentially extend > the emergency. Note that explicitly specifying the deadline in this rule > means that it can't be extended further.] > > Amend the rule entitled "Eclipse Light" by changing the text > "If there is an Emergency Regulation that has existed for at least a > month > and the Prime Minister has not Extended the Emergency in the past month, > any > player CAN, by announcement, cause this rule to repeal all Emergency > Regulations and then itself." > to read > "If there is an Emergency Regulation that has existed for at least a > month > and the Prime Minister has not Extended the Emergency in the past month, > any > player CAN, with 7 days notice, cause this rule to repeal all Emergency > Regulations and then itself." >
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8349-8356
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 at 19:07, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote: > PROPOSAL 8355 (Temporary Suspension of Rules) > CLASS: DEMOCRATIC > FOR (6): Alexis, G., Murphy, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Warrigal, o > AGAINST (0): I award myself red and orange glitter for this proposal. -Alexis
Re: BUS: Notice of Honor: ATTN Arbitor, Assessor
Except for the last one in which e doesn't appear to have voted. On Mon., Mar. 16, 2020, 09:03 Jason Cobb via agora-business, < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 3/16/20 8:52 AM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > On 3/16/20 12:56 AM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > >> -1 Falsifian for self ratifying that I am not a player, three times. > >> +1 Aris because hes epic > >> > >> The CFJ I judged was never judged, G has to reassign that > >> None of my votes count > >> > > Grr... couldn't we just ratify without objection that you were in fact a > > player? You clearly consented to being one. > > > > Also, most(?) resolutions would have self-ratified by now, so they > should be fine. > > -- > Jason Cobb > >
BUS: One last one for tonight.
Proposal: Social Distancing (AI=3)
{{{
Enact a new power-3.01 rule entitled "Eclipse Light", reading as follows:
{{
An emergency message is one whose subject line contains the text "[Emergency]".
The Prime Minister CAN, in an emergency message and with 3 Agoran
consent, enact, amend, or repeal Emergency Regulations, provided that
the intent to do so was also contained in an emergency message.
Emergency Regulations CAN:
- Extend any deadline provided for by any instrument other than this
rule, including a deadline for an obligation to be met, or deadline
prior to which an action must be performed in order to be valid, such
as the end of voting period. Such an extension CANNOT cause the total
time period, such as the time from when an obligation was created to
the deadline or the whole of a voting period, to be more than double
its original length.
- Create, destroy, or transfer assets, or require or forbid their
creation, destruction, or transfer.
- Cause one or more players to win Agora.
- Appoint or remove officeholders.
- Modify the Festivity.
- Award Patent Titles not mentioned in any Rule and Badges.
- Modify the Publicity of Fora.
The Prime Minister CAN, in an emergency message and with 4 Agoran
Consent, provided that the intent to do so was also contained in an
emergency message, Extend the Emergency.
If the Prime Minister has not Extended the Emergency in the past
month, any player CAN cause this rule to repeal all Emergency
Regulations and then itself.
If the Prime Minister has not sent a message to a public forum in the
preceding four days, the Speaker CAN exercise eir powers under this
rule as if e were the Prime Minister, and notwithstanding any rule
that would prohibit a single player from holding both offices.
}}
[I don't think we actually need an emergency rule. But deadline
extensions might be nice, and I figure a little bit of levity might
help us all.]
[Knowing us, we will manage to not only pass it too late, but also too soon.]
}}}
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Monthly report
On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 at 01:58, Alexis Hunt via agora-business wrote: > > On Sat, 7 Mar 2020 at 12:31, James Cook via agora-official > wrote: > > v Wooble wooble at nomictools.com29 Jul 111 Sep 11 > > CoE: This was a Writ of FAGE: > https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg05768.html > > -Alexis I point my finger at James Cook for violating Rule 2143 by failing to maintain information required by Rule 1789 to be in the Registrar's report, namely that Wooble was deregistered by a Writ of FAGE on September 1, 2011. -Alexis
BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Monthly report
On Sat, 7 Mar 2020 at 12:31, James Cook via agora-official wrote: > v Wooble wooble at nomictools.com29 Jul 111 Sep 11 CoE: This was a Writ of FAGE: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg05768.html -Alexis
BUS: Proposal: Karmic Linkage
Proposal: Karmic Linkage (AI=1)
{{{
Amend rule 2510 (Such is Karma) by inserting the following as a new
paragraph after the first list:
"The reasons for provided for the gain and loss of karma SHOULD, but
NEED NOT, be related to one another."
}}}
-Alexis
BUS: NoH
Notice of Honour: +1 Aris for having to wait so long for a peer review. -1 Alexis for the delay. -Alexis
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scroll of Agora
On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 at 15:08, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business wrote: > > Alexis wrote: > > On February 29, twg and Jason were awarded the title of > > Champion, categorized as High Score. > > CoE: A typo in your Champion announcement meant you attempted (and > failed?) to award Falsifian Champion instead of me. > > -twg Admitted; correction forthcoming.
Re: BUS: [Proposals] Onward with bodies of law
On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 at 14:50, Alexis Hunt via agora-business
wrote:
> Proposal: Statutory Instrumentation (AI=3)
>
I withdraw this proposal.
Proposal: Statutory Instrumentation (AI=3, coauthors=Murphy, Aris, Gaelan)
{{{
=Administrative Law Reform. I. Statutory Instrumentation.=
[This first proposal is a reform to the core rules defining what rules
are, with an aim to better supporting subordinate legal documents. The
intent is to enact very little change to the game as it is actually
played, and to operate mostly in the realm of supporting definitions.]
If this proposal has had any provision vetoed, then the entire
proposal has no effect. If this proposal has already taken effect,
then it has no effect.
In this proposal, "I->S" is to amend a rule within the scope specified
by replacing each instance of "an instrument" with "a statute", and
each other instance of "instrument" with "statute". This is not a
case-sensitive match, however, if the word "instrument" being replaced has a
leading capital, then so does the replacement word "statute".
Enact a new power-3.9 rule entitled "Statutory Instrumentation
Simultaneity", reading:
{{
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the proposal which enacted this
rule CAN effect multiple rule changes, which it could otherwise effect
individually, simultaneously. When it
attempts to do so, if any single rule change it attempts is
INEFFECTIVE, then so is the entire attempt.
If the proposal which enacted this rule effects a change to the
definition of a rule then, except for rules which are simultaneously
and explicitly enacted or repealed with that change, as appropriate,
the rules after that change are exactly the entities that were rules
beforehand. This is a definition of the interpretation of the
amendment to the rules and not, in and of itself, a rule change.
}}
[This proposes to make multiple interlocking amendments to critical
rules defining rules and the interactions between themselves. This
mitigates a real risk that, during a series of sequential changes, the
rules would be in a nonsensical or otherwise broken state. I
considered trying to put in a special clause preserving the effect of
the current rules on rule changes for the duration of the proposal,
but that wouldn't preclude the possibility of some other aspect of the
game, such as asset holdings, doing something weird in the in-between
state. And only a
persistent rule could elegantly paper over that small weird gap in
time. I think simultaneity is the better choice.]
Set the power of all non-rule entities, other than this proposal, to
0. [This is an important safety as the change to the definition of a
rule would potentially cause old non-rule instruments to become rules.
Best not to consider that.]
Apply the following rule changes simultaneously:
{{
Amend Rule 1688 (Power) by replacing "An Instrument is an entity with
positive Power." with "A statute is a document with positive Power."
Apply I->S throughout the remainder of the rule.
Amend rule 2140 (Power Controls Mutability) by replacing "set or
modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument with power
greater than its own." with "set or modify any other substantive
aspect of an instrument with power greater than its own except as
otherwise provided in this rule.", applying I->S throughout the rest
of the rule, and appending a new paragraph reading "An ephemeral
instrument is bound by prohibitions and limitations specified in rules
of lower power, unless it explicitly overrides those prohibition(s) as
provided for in other rules."
[I don't want to consider what it would mean if PCM prevents rules
from interfering with higher-powered proposal. Let's pretend this is
just clarifying something super obvious to everyone.]
Apply I->S throughout Rule 105 (Rule Changes).
Enact a new power-3 Rule entitled "Instruments" reading:
{
An instrument is a type of document, either ephemeral or enduring,
that is defined as such by a body of law. An instrument's text, where
otherwise permitted, can be amended from time to time.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an instrument other than a
statute CANNOT become binding on a person without eir willful consent,
however, consent can be given by implication. In particular,
consenting to be bound to an instrument can imply consent to be bound
by amendments to it and consent to be bound by other instruments.
}
Enact a new power-3 Rule entitled "Bodies of Law" reading:
{
A body of law is a collection of related instruments and bodies of law
whose effects are collective and possibly interdependent, and which is
defined as such by a body of law. The statutes of Agora form a body of
law with unlimited scope. All other bodies of law are defined by a
different body of law, in such a way as to be able to trace their
origins back
BUS: [CFJ] Follow-on about official reports
I CFJ {I am currently obligated to publish a report detailing the
values of Karma switches as of some point in the previous Agoran
week.}
Arguments: I missed my report last week, so my obligation to publish
it continues. Per CFJ 3798, "each part must be up-to-date to within
the time frame specified for the report (e.g. to the current week for
weekly)". So does this mean that I am obligated to publish a report
for the previous week, as an up-to-date report would not be within the
specified time frame?
I CFJ {It is generally POSSIBLE, assuming all other conditions for
deputisation are met, for a person to deputize to publish a weekly
report by publishing a report accurate as of a date one year prior.}
Arguments: The obligation to continually maintain information in a
report is one held only by the officer, separate from the obligation
to actually publish the report. Per CFJ 3798's logic, the obligation
that the report be up-to-date is a part of the maintenance obligation
and not of the general publication obligation. It thus follows that a
completely out-of-date report would still qualify.
Alexis
BUS: CFJ 3821
I judge CFJ 3821 FALSE, per my arguments. I award myself Blue Glitter. -Alexis
BUS: blotting
I expunge a blot from myself. -Alexis
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8342-8348
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 02:20, Aris Merchant via agora-official
wrote:
> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
> pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
> quorum is 7, 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
> ---
> 8342j Gaelan, [1] 2.0 Calls with Memoranda
ENDORSE the Arbitor.
> 8343j twg 1.7 Judicial Jocularity Act
AGAINST.
> 8344* Alexis 3.0 Unsubstantive interpretation
FOR.
> 8345j Jason2.0 Self-punishment
AGAINST.
> 8346* Jason, ais5233.0 De-secure Black Ribbons v2
FOR.
> 8347* Jason3.0 R2141 power increase v2
ENDORSE the majority opinion among G, Jason, and Murphy, if one
exists, otherwise FOR.
> 8348* Gaelan 3.1 Summaries Matter
ENDORSE the Treasuror.
> //
> ID: 8342
> Title: Calls with Memoranda
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: Gaelan
> Co-authors: Aris, G., Alexis
>
>
> Create a new Power-2 rule titled “Administrative Opinions”: {
> An officer may publish an Administrative Opinion for a judicial case,
> specifying a valid judgement for that case. Officers SHOULD only assign
> Administrative Opinions to cases with which eir office is primarily
> concerned.
> The Arbitor SHOULD record Administrative Opinions along with case
> judgements.
> An officer who has published an Administrative Opinion for an unassigned
> case
> may, without objection, Administratively Close a case, causing em to become
> the judge for the case and eir Administrative Opinion to become the judgment
> for the case. The Arbitor SHOULD NOT assign a judge to a case while
> proceedings to Administratively Close it are ongoing.
> }
>
> //
> ID: 8343
> Title: Judicial Jocularity Act
> Adoption index: 1.7
> Author: twg
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend Rule 591, "Delivering Judgement", by replacing each occurrence of
> "DISMISS" with "¯\_(ツ)_/¯".
>
> [Very few CFJs get judged DISMISS at the moment; I figure the generation
> of mirth outweighs the slight inconvenience of having to copy-and-paste
> it from the ruleset occasionally.]
>
> //
> ID: 8344
> Title: Unsubstantive interpretation
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Alexis
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend Rule 2140 (Power Controls Mutability) by replacing
> 'A "substantive" aspect of an instrument is any aspect that affects the
> instrument's operation.'
>
> with
>
> 'A "substantive" aspect of an instrument is any aspect that affects the
> instrument's operation, but does not include its interpretation."
> }
> [Interpretations between entities of different power are controlled by R217.]
>
> //
> ID: 8345
> Title: Self-punishment
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: Jason
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend Rule 2555 (Blots) by inserting the following paragraph after the
> paragraph beginning "Levying fines and destroying blots":
>
> A person CAN, by announcement, create a specified number of blots in
> eir possession.
>
> Amend Rule 2535 (Zombies) by inserting the following list item before
> the item that says "deregister.":
>
> - create blots;
>
> [This is intended to allow contracts to provide enforcement mechanisms
> other than R1742's general "SHALL act in accordance with that contract".
> For example, a contract could grant an Enforcer the ability to act on
> behalf of other parties to create blots in the possession of the other
> party. This could also, potentially, reduce work on the Referee.
>
> The zombie provision is intended to prevent zombie owners from screwing
> over their zombies.]
>
> //
> ID: 8346
> Title: De-secure Black Ribbons v2
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Jason
> Co-authors: ais523
>
>
> Amend Rule 2438 (Ribbons) by replacing the text "This rule does not
> specify any methods of obtaining Black Ribbons." with the text "An
> Instrument CAN, as part of its effect, cause a person to earn a Black
> Ribbon. When this occurs, this Rule awards that person a Black Ribbon.".
>
> //
> ID: 8347
> Title: R2141 power increase v2
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Jason
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Set Rule 2141's power to 3.1
>
> [Rationale: Rule 2141 (Role and Attributes of Rules) defines
> (unsurprisingly) what rules are and what they can do. This is
> sufficiently important that it should take
BUS: [Proposals] Onward with bodies of law
Proposal: Statutory Instrumentation (AI=3)
{{{
=Administrative Law Reform. I. Statutory Instrumentation.=
[This first proposal is a reform to the core rules defining what rules
are, with an aim to better supporting subordinate legal documents. The
intent is to enact very little change to the game as it is actually
played, and to operate mostly in the realm of supporting definitions.]
If this proposal has had any provision vetoed, then the entire
proposal has no effect. If this proposal has already taken effect,
then it has no effect.
In this proposal, "I->S" is to amend a rule within the scope specified
by replacing each instance of "an Instrument" with "a statute", and
each other instance of "Instrument" with "statute". This is not a
case-sensitive match, however, if the text being replaced has a
leading capital, then so does the replacement.
Enact a new power-3.9 rule entitled "Statutory Instrumentation
Simultaneity", reading:
{{
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the proposal which enacted this
rule CAN effect multiple rule changes, which it could otherwise effect
individually, simultaneously. When it
attempts to do so, if any single rule change it attempts is
INEFFECTIVE, then so is the entire attempt.
If the proposal which enacted this rule effects a change to the
definition of a rule then, except for rules which are simultaneously
and explicitly enacted or repealed with that change, as appropriate,
the rules after that change are exactly the entities that were rules
beforehand. This is a definition of the interpretation of the
amendment to the rules and not, in and of itself, a rule change.
}}
[This proposes to make multiple interlocking amendments to critical
rules defining rules and the interactions between themselves. This
mitigates a real risk that, during a series of sequential changes, the
rules would be in a nonsensical or otherwise broken state. I
considered trying to put in a special clause preserving the effect of
the current rules on rule changes for the duration of the proposal,
but that wouldn't preclude the possibility of some other aspect of the
game, such as asset holdings, doing something weird in the in-between
state. And only a
persistent rule could elegantly paper over that small weird gap in
time. I think simultaneity is the better choice.]
Set the power of all non-rule entities, other than this proposal, to
0. [This is an important safety as the change to the definition of a
rule would potentially cause old non-rule instruments to become rules.
Best not to consider that.]
Apply the following rule changes simultaneously:
{{
Amend Rule 1688 (Power) by replacing "An Instrument is an entity with
positive Power." with "A statute is a document with positive Power."
Apply I->S throughout the remainder of the rule.
Amend rule 2140 (Power Controls Mutability) by replacing "set or
modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument with power
greater than its own." with "set or modify any other substantive
aspect of an instrument with power greater than its own except as
otherwise provided in this rule.", applying I->S throughout the rest
of the rule, and appending a new paragraph reading "An ephemeral
instrument is bound by prohibitions and limitations specified in rules
of lower power, unless it explicitly overrides those prohibition(s) as
provided for in other rules."
[I don't want to consider what it would mean if PCM prevents rules
from interfering with higher-powered proposal. Let's pretend this is
just clarifying something super obvious to everyone.]
Apply I->S throughout Rule 105 (Rule Changes).
Enact a new power-3 Rule entitled "Instruments" reading:
{
An instrument is a type of document, either ephemeral or enduring,
that is defined as such by a body of law. An instrument's text, where
otherwise permitted, can be amended from time to time.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an instrument other than a
statute CANNOT become binding on a person without eir willful consent,
however, consent can be given by implication. In particular,
consenting to be bound to an instrument can imply consent to be bound
by amendments to it and consent to be bound by other instruments.
}
Enact a new power-3 Rule entitled "Bodies of Law" reading:
{
A body of law is a collection of related instruments and bodies of law
whose effects are collective and possibly interdependent, and which is
defined as such by a body of law. The statutes of Agora form a body of
law with unlimited scope. All other bodies of law are defined by a
different body of law, in such a way as to be able to trace their
origins back to the statutes of Agora. Two or more bodies of law may
jointly define another body of law, but only each of them clearly
expresses the intent to participate in a joint definition with each of
the others. Otherwise, the definitions are separate, distinct, and
unrelated.
A body of law is governed by all bodies of law which, directly or
indirectly, participate in its definition, as
BUS: Expungement Proposal
Proposal: Apologies Don't Interfere (AI=2, Chamber=Justice)
{{{
Amend rule 2555 by replacing "who has not expunged any blots in the
current Agoran week" with "who has not, by this mechanism, expunged
any blots in the current Agoran week".
}}}
-Alexis
Re: BUS: [ADoP] More elections
On Sun, 23 Feb 2020 at 14:12, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: > > I resolve the Notary election: as the only candidate, Alexis wins. I award myself Emerald Glitter.
Re: BUS: [ADoP] More elections
On Sun, 23 Feb 2020 at 14:12, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: > I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the Prime Minister > election. I vote [Alexis, G.]. > I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the Rulekeepor > election. I vote for Jason. -Alexis
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [ADoP] More elections
On Sun, 23 Feb 2020 at 14:57, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > Oh crap. I forgot to become a candidate for notary, didn’t I? > > Alexis, if you want notary, you can have it. I won’t stop you. But I’ll be > honest: I’m more than a bit frustrated that I screwed this up, and I kind of > want the office back, or at least a proper election. > > Gaelan I don't. I just wanted to secure you into the office as elected, oops. I initiate an election for Notary. I resign Notary. -Alexis
BUS: An apology
We would like to sincerely apologize to Agora for my admittedly-minor malfeasance in public office. The timely execution of official duties is critical to avoiding confusion and missed opportunities, whose disorderly effects on Agora cannot be understated. Like the iridescence of a butterfly's wings, even small mistakes can have consequences as vast as the dolomite mountains of Italy. In this case, our miniscule error had the result of denying to twg eir rightful platinisation, although to be fair Jason could easily have acted sooner, in a way that made our own delay irrelevant. It is surely more difficult, however, to predict the true implications of any failure than to predict what happens when one runs a Malbolge program, and so it was irresponsible of us to take that risk. As I'm sure you all know, the office of Prime Minister is of critical importance to all of Agora, and we all demand the best of our politicians. While we allegedly reflect on the inconsequential error we made while holding that august position, we shall take our time to prevaricate and bloviate in the manner of the most accomplished statespersons, that we may pad out the length of this apology to make it seem more substantial. Despite that, we truly regret our error and we will strive to do better forever, or until this trivial incident has slipped Agoran minds, whichever comes first. -Alexis
BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3814 Assigned to Alexis
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 10:23, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > The below CFJ is 3814. I assign it to Alexis. > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3814 The crux of this issue is whether or not Proposal 8291 was ambiguous in referring to "add"ing an item to a list. Both Wiktionary and Merriam-Webster, however, clearly indicate that "add" can be synonymous with "append", without providing any reasonable alternate sense which would be applicable here. I thus find that, without any other qualification as to where an item is to be inserted in a list, to "add" an item means to do so at the end. I do not find that this rises to the level of ambiguity, because while "add to the beginning" may well mean something different (and itself be unambiguous), simply because one could insert a prepositional phrase does not necessarily add ambiguity when there is a clearly-established meaning without it. Indeed, the Rulekeepor felt it clear enough to add the text to the end of the rule without further comment, before e went back and changed eir mind and submitted a fix proposal. Consequently, Proposal 8291 did indeed insert the text at the end of the list, and so Proposal 8308 did not actually make any changes to the text of the rules. Proposal 8308's text is clear that, if the desired text was where it was supposed to be, it would not attempt to amend Rule 2350. There is, accordingly, no need for the court to decide if a null amendment would qualify for a Red Ribbon. This case is FALSE. I award myself Blue Glitter. -Alexis
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [DoV] Leaving the bourgeoisie
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 12:40, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > Since we're probably about to remove this method of winning, I pay a fee > > of 1000 coins to win the game. > > Goddammit, all I wanted was a platinum ribbon > > -twg I point a finger at myself for failing to appoint a Speaker in a timely fashion. I resign Prime Minister. -Alexis
BUS: Judgment in CFJ 3793
# Judgment of CFJ 3793 > Rance's master switch is set to Gaelan. ## History For a brief recap of this case, the fundamental question here is whether, upon paying the fee to win a zombie auction, Rance's master switch was actually set to Gaelan. This case has gone through a rich history and varied arguments. The issue at the heart of this case was raised before in CFJs 3693 and 3694, with CFJ 3693 having been withdrawn due to a technical flaw and CFJ 3694 representing the substantive judgement on the question "It is generally IMPOSSIBLE for a zombie to be transferred to the winner of a lot in a zombie auction." CFJ 3793 was assigned to twg, who found that this case was also trivially false as Gaelan was not one of the three highest bids in the auction in question, so the case must clearly have the value FALSE. I find no reason to disagree. Therefore, I judge CFJ 3793 FALSE and award myself blue glitter. However, Judge twg went into obiter on what the correct judgment would be notwithstanding the trivial error, and found, based on the precedent of CFJ 3794, that indeed the zombie generally could be transferred. [As an aside here, H. Arbitor, would you please be so kind as to include the original judge's arguments and the subsequent arguments on reconsideration into the case archive?] In argument after the judgement, I raised Rule 2125, and in particular its requirement that "A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as described by the Rules, and only using the methods explicitly specified in the Rules for performing the given action." The judgment in CFJ 3794 held that Rule 2545's text "An Auction is a way for entities to give away items in exchange for a currency." meant that, by necessary implication, it must be capable of effecting that transfer. Consequently, Rule 1885's provisions that a zombie auction can be initiated by the Registrar create a necessary implication that there exists a mechanism to transfer zombies in the auction. Judge D. Margaux also pointed out that this was consistent with the best interests of the game and ordinary language. However, I argued that this did not meet the standard of an explicitly specified method from Rule 2125. As a result of my argument, a Motion to Reconsider was filed, and a few additional arguments were given. twg argued that the method of an auction was specified explicitly, though perhaps not entirely clearly. E argued that R2545's text, quoted above, explicitly states that the auction provides a method, noting that "way" is synonymous to "method". G. did note that "clear" and "unambiguous" are not the same, citing CFJ 3659, but pointed out also that the word "explicit" "seems to embody clarity". E later gave an argument that the rules are explicit that a zombie auction is the method of executing a transfer of assets, even if the internal mechanisms of the auction rules are broken. E compared to the dependent action rules, whereby a definition that something can be done "without objection" is explicit regardless of whether or not the dependent action rules are broken or not. I had thought that I had submitted additional argument that the text in R2545 could be interpreted as merely being generally explanatory, but I cannot seem to find such argument. ## The Function of Rule 2125 So in order to address this case, we must remind ourselves of the provisions of Rule 217. The interpretation of the rules is guided first by their text, followed by game custom, common sense, past judgements, and the good of the game to be applied where the text of the rules is silent, inconsistent, or unclear. I find that, in the context of zombie auctions specifically, every one of these factors points to them functioning and allowing zombies to be transferred. However, because the text of the rules takes precedence, it must be considered first. There is an interesting conundrum here, as there is a question of where in this sequence to consider whether the auction rules are "explicit". Do we evaluate the text of all the rules in a single step, then proceed to consider the other R217 factors on the rules as a whole, or do we do a two-phase process whereby we first attempt to learn what "explicit" means, then apply its text to the auction rules? This arguably creates a circular instance of the same problem, applied to R217 itself, however, I believe that it can be short-circuited by observing that it would very much not be in keeping with common sense or the best interests of the game for R217 to have anything other than uniform application across all cases, for its very existence would be undermined. Its interpretation could change based on the nature of the situation to which it is applied, including on rules of lower power, something it expressly considers to be problematic. It follows by similar logic, and by common sense, that R217 applies similarly to other interpretive rules. Thus, when dealing with rules which affect or are affected by the interpretation of other
BUS: Is interpretation substantive?
Proposal: Unsubstantive interpretation (AI=3)
{{{
Amend Rule 2140 (Power Controls Mutability) by replacing 'A
"substantive" aspect of an instrument is any aspect that affects the
instrument's operation.' with 'A "substantive" aspect of an instrument
is any aspect that affects the instrument's operation, but does not
include its interpretation."
}
[Interpretations between entities of different power are controlled by R217.]
}}}
-Alexis
BUS: Missed report
I point a finger at myself for failing to publish the Herald's weekly report last week. I point a finger at myself for failing to publish a correction to the Herald's weekly report after Gaelan's CoE in a timely fashion. I request that the Referee note that these are substantially the same offence and not double-punish me for it. (A complete oversight; I updated it and forgot about it!) -Alexis
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Re-renumbered Index: Proposals 8322-8341
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 20:35, Aris Merchant via agora-official wrote: > 8322* Falsifian, Alexis, twg 3.0 Unrepetition v1.1 PRESENT > 8323* Jason3.0 Secure Ribbons FOR > 8324l Falsifian2.0 Democratic unassignment PRESENT > 8325e Falsifian2.0 Inflation Vote AGAINST, since I don't know what the final value will be. Inflation Ballot: 500,000,000,000,000 > 8326* Falsifian3.0 Attempted cleanup FOR > 8327l Falsifian1.0 Blink test v1.2 FOR > 8328* Falsifian3.0 The Eternal Sprit AGAINST > 8329p Alexis 1.0 RtRW Reschedule FOR > 8330* G. 3.0 No looting white ribbons FOR > 8331j Warrigal 1.7 Promissory cleanliness FOR > 8332f Murphy, Alexis 1.0 Switch Responsibility Responsibility FOR > 8333l Murphy, Alexis 2.0 Meaningful extra votes FOR > 8334e Murphy, Alexis 2.0 Meaningless extra coins FOR > 8335f Murphy 2.0 Consistent ADoP duties AGAINST > 8336* Jason3.0 Define "publicly" FOR > 8337e Murphy 1.0 Fix Auctions AGAINST; this does nothing as it still fails to specify a mechanism. > 8338l Murphy 2.0 Clarify quorum (option 1) FOR > 8339l Murphy 2.0 Clarify quorum (option 2) AGAINST > 8340p Alexis 1.0 The Paradox of Self-Appointment FOR > 8341* Alexis, G. 3.0 Support of the Person FOR -Alexis
BUS: Last minute proposals
I submit a proposal identical to proposal 8313 (Support of the Person)
except it has no ID number.
Proposal: The Paradox of Self-Appointment (AI=1, chamber=Participation)
{{{
Amend Rule 103 (The Speaker) by inserting
{
If the Prime Minister is emself Laureled, eir power to appoint a
Speaker continues for the entirety of a message in which e resigns as
Prime Minister, and if e is the only Laureled player, e CAN void that
power, and thereby discharge the obligation to use it, by announcing
that e declines to take the office.
}
at the end of the second paragraph, and by moving the first two
sentences of the second paragraph to the first paragraph.
}}}
-Alexis
Re: BUS: Election Intents
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 19:14, Alexis Hunt via agora-business wrote: > I intend, with 2 Support, to initiate an election for each of the > following offices: > > * Notary, as it is a brand new office; > * Rulekeepor, as it is interim; and I initiate elections for each of these, and become a candidate for both. -Alexis
Re: BUS: [ADoP] Election voting opens
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 at 22:29, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: > I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the Referee > election. > > I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the Registrar > election. I endorse the current holders of each office on the respective decision.
Re: BUS: Election Intents
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 at 10:28, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > For Prime Minister, I support. I do so. I become a candidate. > > -G. I become a candidate.
BUS: Election Intents
I intend, with 2 Support, to initiate an election for each of the following offices: * Assessor, as I'm dissatisfied with the sparse content of resolutions; * Notary, as it is a brand new office; * Rulekeepor, as it is interim; and * Prime Minister, as it is interim. -Alexis
BUS: Re: DIS: [Assessor] Draft resolutions of Proposals 8308-8321
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 19:00, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 2/9/20 6:42 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > > The original AI was 2 when it was submitted. Noticing this error > > within the week of distribution would invalidate it for lack of > > clarity, but it's self-ratified, so I believe it's properly > > distributed at AI=2 now. > > > > -Alexis > > > I think we're all in luck, because I CoE'd that proposal for a > completely different reason: > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-February/042099.html Ah, right! So the distribution failed. I withdraw the proposal 'Zombie trade'. I point my finger at Aris for failing to respond to the cited CoE in a timely fashion. -Alexis
BUS: A Modest Proposal
Proposal: RtRW Reschedule (AI=1)
{{{
Amend Rule 2327 (Read the Ruleset Week) by adding the following paragraph:
{
The above notwithstanding, due to serious uncertainty surrounding the
state of the rules during the scheduled Read the Ruleset Week, in the
year 2020, Read the Ruleset Week is, instead, the week of February 24
- March 1
}
}}}
(I wanted to post a zombie auction fix but, honestly, the auction
rules are so long and complicated for little value that it's not worth
it right now.)
Re: BUS: A cleaning
Having received no objections, I do so. On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 23:27, Alexis Hunt via agora-business wrote: > > I intend, without objection, to clean Rule 2532 by replacing "a active" > with "an active". > > -Alexis
Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 19:26, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business
wrote:
>
> Jason wrote:
> > Sorry, do people have other support/objections for these? I would prefer
> > not to just let them die.
>
> I object to the capitalisation one for the same reason as Alexis.
>
> I object to the lists one because the example given is very confusing.
> It's not an inline list because it's separated from the surrounding
> prose, and it's not a block list because the elements aren't separated
> by line breaks. And why are those spacing restrictions needed anyway
> when R2429 lets you, as Rulekeepor, change spacing freely?
>
> I support the pronouns one, although I think it could do with amending
> to specify the other declensions ("eir", "eirs", "emself") too.
>
> -twg
I CFJ {Jason has, in the last two weeks, made a single intent to enact
multiple Editorial Guidelines and twg is both a Supporter and Objector
to it.}
Arguments:
As discussed, this is likely a single intent/action rather than
multiple. However, beyond that, by trying to support and/or object to
individual components, has twg thereby supported and objected to it?
Or has this failed and e is neither?
-Alexis
Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 19:05, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > They're separate attempts, so you could object to only the > capitalization one. "I intend, with Agoran consent, to enact the following Editorial Guidelines:" does not seem like multiple separate intents.
Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 18:43, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > > I've finally gotten around to drafting these, so I intend, with Agoran > consent, to enact the following Editorial Guidelines: After reading through them again, I object. I have no issues with the latter two, but I am personally opposed to the idea that terms of art should not be capitalized; it can enhance clarity to do so. -Alexis
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8308-8321
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 21:29, Aris Merchant via agora-official wrote: > > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran > Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal > pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the > quorum is 7, 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 > --- > 8308& Falsifian3.0 Imposing order on the order AGAINST per omd > 8309* Alexis 3.0 A Degree of Inefficiency AGAINST > 8310& Jason, Alexis3.0 Deputisation timeliness AGAINST > 8311e twg, omd 1.0 Rewards Patch & Equitable Remedy ENDORSE omd > 8312f Alexis 1.0 On Possibility ENDORSE Falsifian > 8313* Alexis, G. 3.0 Support of the Person FOR > 8314e Aris 1.0 Finite Gifting FOR > 8315* Alexis 3.0 Clearer Resolutions FOR > 8316* Alexis 3.0 Zombie voting package FOR > 8317e Alexis 2.0 Zombie trade FOR > 8318f Aris 1.0 Notorial Economy AGAINST as it contradicts the next proposal. > 8319l Aris 2.0 Sergeant-at-Arms FOR > 8320l Aris 2.0 Promotorial Assignment FOR > 8321l Aris 2.0 Untying Quorum AGAINST -Alexis
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Weekly Report: The Honour Roll
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 14:34, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote: > > CoE: I (rather rudely) included a notice of /honou?r/ in my last round of > votes. > > Gaelan Admitted. The Herald expresses disgrunt over the American spelling hiding from search.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3805 Assigned to Aris
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 at 15:37, Kerim Aydin via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > The below CFJ is 3805. I assign it to Aris. > > === CFJ 3805 === > > G really ought to make sure the string doesn’t adversely > affect eir archive. > I intend, with 2 Agoran consent, to award Gaelan the Patent Title of Little Ricky Tables. -Alexis
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
On Wed., Jan. 29, 2020, 23:29 Aris Merchant via agora-discussion, <
agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > > 8312# Alexis 1.0 On Possibility
> > >
> > I intend, with 2 Agoran consent, to flip the chamber of this proposal to
> > Efficiency.
> >
> > > 8317# Alexis 2.0 Zombie trade
> > >
> > I intend, with 2 Agoran consent, to flip the chamber of this proposal to
> > Economy.
> >
> > -Alexis
>
>
>
> > You can do it by announcement by retracting and resubmitting the
> proposal.
> I won’t mind (especially given that we’re all just getting used to the new
> order).
>
> -Aris
>
Arright, I retract the above proposals and resubmit ones that are identical
but have the chambers indicated in the quoted message.
Also, one other correction; I resubmit the proposal "Clearer Resolutions"
and submit one that's identical except with the following added at the end:
{{
Amend Rule 2034 (Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges) to read:
{
A public message purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is a
self-ratifying attestation that:
1. such a decision existed;
2. it had the outcome indicated;
3. if the indicated outcome was to adopt a proposal, that such a decision
existed, was adopted, and took effect by virtue of the resolution;
4. if the indicated outcome was to elect a person to an office and if the
person was eligible for that office, that that person won the election and
took office.
}
}}
(In the future, would you prefer that those sort of corrections be done by
repasting the text? I've assumed not but I'm happy to continue them
particularly for when I left a rule out like this. Whichever's easier for
you.)
-Alexis
BUS: A cleaning
I intend, without objection, to clean Rule 2532 by replacing "a active" with "an active". -Alexis
BUS: Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 23:08, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Here's a draft report. Comments are, as always, highly appreciated. > > -Aris > --- > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran > Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal > pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the > quorum is 7, 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 > --- > 8308* Falsifian3.0 Imposing order on the order > Unless I'm mistaken, this proposal (and possibly others as well) has no class, as it was submitted prior to the creation of class. > 8312# Alexis 1.0 On Possibility > I intend, with 2 Agoran consent, to flip the chamber of this proposal to Efficiency. > 8317# Alexis 2.0 Zombie trade > I intend, with 2 Agoran consent, to flip the chamber of this proposal to Economy. -Alexis
BUS: [Proposal] Zombie proposals
Proposal: Zombie voting package (AI=3)
{{{
Amend Rule 683 (Voting on Agoran Decisions) by appending the following
paragraph:
{{
The above notwithstanding, at the end of the voting period for an Agoran
decision, prior to the evaluation of conditionals, each entity who has
never submitted a valid ballot for that decision, and for whom the Rules
provide a default vote for that decision, automatically submits a valid
vote on that decision for eir default vote and becomes quorum-ineligible
for that decision. Providing an entity with a default vote on an Agoran
decision is secured with power threshold 2.
}}
[We do not think that the "never submitted" condition is too onerous on the
Assessor as e will be going through all the votes anyway.
We would even go with "never attempted to", but we suspect that might lead
to too much litigation, particularly because the easiest way to try and
fail is a NttPF.]
Amend Rule 955 (Determining the Will of Agora) by inserting: {
Designating a voter as quorum-ineligible on an Agoran decision is secured
with Power Threshold 2; all voters are otherwise quorum-eligible.
}
and by replacing: {
If there is more than one option, and the number of voters is less than the
quorum of that decision, the outcome is instead FAILED QUORUM.
} with {
If there is more than one option on an Agoran decision, and the number of
quorum-eligible voters on it is less than its quorum, its outcome is
instead FAILED QUORUM.
}
[Cleaned up this language because there's already a definition of a voter
applicable to R955 here in R208 (possibly moved as a result of my other
proposal). While I don't think Gaelan's suggestion of clearing up the
possibility of a ballot identical to a default ballot was necessary, this
is cleaner IMO.]
Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) by replacing {
If no other rule defines the quorum of an Agoran Decision, the quorum for
that decision is equal to 2/3 of the number of voters on the Agoran
Decision to adopt a proposal that had been most recently resolved at the
time of that decision's initiation, the whole rounded to the nearest
integer (breaking ties upward).
} with {
The Activity Level is equal to 2/3, rounded to the nearest integer and
breaking ties
upward, of the number of quorum-eligible voters on the most
recently-resolved Agoran decision to adopt a proposal. If no other rules
define the quorum of an Agoran decision, then the quorum of that decision
is equal to the Activity Level at the time if its initiation.
}
Enact a new power-2 rule entitled "Zombie Voting" reading as follows:
{{
A zombie has its voting strength halved.
The default vote of a zombie is to endorse eir master.
Zombies are not quorum-eligible for any Agoran decision.
}}
[Rounding is already provided by R2422.]
}}}
Proposal: Zombie trade (AI=2)
{{{
[This proposal allows zombies to collect the fruits of their zombie
auctions, and to allow players to voluntarily enter servitude. Yes, it does
make buying a zombie a risky business!]
Amend Rule 2483 (Economics) by replacing "Agora, players, and contracts"
with "Agora, players, zombie trusts, and contracts".
Amend Rule 2532 (Zombies) by:
- appending "A player CAN, without 3 objections, flip eir own master switch
to any other player. Other players SHOULD NOT object unless they believe
that the intent is part of an attempt to flood Agora with the undead."
- inserting "- flip eir master switch;" in the list after the first item
- replacing "A zombie's master CAN flip that zombie's master switch to
Agora by announcement." with "A zombie's master CAN flip that zombie's
master switch to Agora or to any player who does not own any zombies by
announcement."; and
- replacing "resale value" with "integrity".
Amend Rule 2574 (Zombie Life Cycle) by:
- replacing the first two paragraphs with: {
Any player CAN, with notice, putrefy player who has not made a public
announcement in the past 60 days. When a player is putrefied:
- if e is not a zombie, eir master switch is flipped to Agora; and then
- eir integrity is set to 2.
Integrity is a secured switch for zombies, tracked by the Registrar, with
possible values of the natural numbers and "well-maintained" (default). If
an integrity switch would be modified in a manner that assumes it is
already a number, such as to increase or decrease it, such a modification
leaves "well-maintained" as-is. Whenever a zombie's master switch is
flipped from Agora to a player other than emself, eir integrity is
decreased by 1. At the end of a zombie auction, every zombie that is an
excess lot in that auction has eir integrity decreased by 1.
};
- inserting "- if a zombie is master to another zombie, flipping the second
zombie's master switch to Agora;" after the second item in the list; and
- replacing "resale value" with "integrity" throughout the rule.
Amend Rule 1885 (Zombie Auctions) by:
- replacing "resale value" with "integrity";
- appending "When the winner of a zombie auction pays Agora to fulfill eir
obligation to satisfy eir bid, the
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 20:59, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Erm... you might want to check this list again. You have it going 3, 4, 6, > 7 > Oops. I withdraw "Clearer Resolutions" and submit an identical proposal except with the list items numbered 3, 4, 5, and 6 instead of 3, 4, 6, and 7, respectively. Apologies for all the editorial work, but at the moment our device is rather grumpy about trying to copy-paste. Notice of Honour: -1: Alexis, for making the Promotor do eir work for em. +1: Aris, for having to do Alexis's work. -Alexis
BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 13:45, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion <
agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> Jason Cobb wrote:
> > RESOLUTION OF PROPOSALS 8287-8307
> > =
> >
> > I hereby resolve the Agoran decisions to adopt the below proposals.
>
> NB: The F/A ratios on several of Proposals 8292-8307, and on the second
> attempt at 8290, are incorrect because they do not take into account the
> amendments to voting strength made by Proposal 8291. To be specific,
> Alexis's voting strength falls to 3 because the Prime Minister now only
> receives a bonus (which itself is now of 2, not 1) on proposals with a
> ministry set, which none of these do, and G.'s voting strength rises to
> 4 because the Speaker now receives a bonus on all decisions.
>
> This is not a formal CoE because I don't believe it changes the
> outcome of any of the votes.
>
> -twg
>
Because there are multiple contradictory proposals in this batch (trying to
change the voting strength range to different things), and because of the
change of voting strengths, I would like to insist on correct resolutions.
However, it's not clear to me that they're actually invalid, because of the
serious ambiguity of what constitutes a "tally".
Therefore, I instead submit the following proposal:
Proposal: Clearer Resolutions (AI=3)
{{{
Amend Rule 208 (Resolving Agoran Decisions) by replacing the third and
fourth items in the list with the following:
{
3. It specifies the quorum of the decision.
4. It specifies all the valid ballots, and no invalid ballots, on that
decision, as of the end of the voting period, including each ballot's
author, eir voting strength, its vote, and, if the vote is a conditional
one, the unconditional vote to which it is evaluated.
6. The total strength of all ballots cast for each non-PRESENT option.
7. It specifies the outcome, as defined by other rules.
}
[Note that the existing "more than one option" text is basically
tautologically true and practically useless anyway. PRESENT is an option,
so only a decision with no other options would only have one. And even if
we changed it, we short-circuit single-candidate elections so we might as
well just drop that text.
This is the main point of the proposal; I apologize to the Assessor that e
does perhaps not wish to do the additional work here, but it was a
longstanding Assessor practice and, as we are getting into the space of
highly variable voting power again, quite necessary.]
Amend Rule 683 (Voting on Agoran Decisions) by appending the following
paragraph to the end of the rule:
{
When used in reference to a person who has cast a vote on an Agoran
decision, rather than to a person who is eligible to or otherwise might
cast a vote, the term "voter" refers only to a person who has a valid
ballot on that decision.
}
[This is slightly different from the existing definition, as it includes
people whose votes were not valid but became valid, but such a scenario
shouldn't happen and in any case, this lines up with existing language so
as to prevent a weird situation where a person's vote counts towards the
result but not quorum.]
Amend Rule 955 (Determining the Will of Agora) by replacing the text "The
outcome of a decision is determined when it is resolved, and cannot change
thereafter." with "The outcome of a decision is fixed at the end of its
voting period, after evaluating all votes whose values are determined only
at the end of the voting period, and cannot change thereafter."
[This prevents manipulation of voting strength post-decision from affecting
the result because that's an absurd amount of power to offer an Assessor,
to be able to delay or otherwise manipulate the timing of resolutions so as
to modify voting strength after a resolution. It also simplifies eir job
considerably by not requiring em to take into account the effects of
proposals on voting strength as e resolves them, especially if a CoE
results in different ordering of proposals.]
}}}
BUS: [Proposal Shenanigans]
I withdraw all proposals I have authored in the Proposal Pool and submit identical ones. (I will assign them chambers by Agoran consent later, if need be, because I don't have the time to look for them all.) -Alexis
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Help with Forgotten Announcements, Support Improvements
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 17:34, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion <
agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > On Jan 29, 2020, at 1:46 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business <
> agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > Proposal: On Possibility (AI=1)
> > {{{
> > Enact a new power-1 rule entitled "Default Mechanisms" reading as
> follows:
> > {
> > If the Rules other than this one, as a whole, provide that a person CAN
> > perform an action, but do not state the mechanism by which e can do so, e
> > CAN perform it by announcement.
> >
> > If the Rules other than this one, as a whole, provide that a non-person
> > entity CAN perform an action, but do state the mechanism by which e can
> do
> > so, any person CAN cause that entity to perform that action with Agoran
> > Consent.
>
> AFIACT, this exists even if the rule already has a mechanism for causing
> that entity to do things. For example, we have provisions that allow
> contracts and instruments to do things—this would make those things
> performable with consent (in practice, those things are largely too high
> powered, but the bug could still exists).
>
Oops, that's a typo. It should be "not".
I withdraw the proposal "On Possibility" and submit one that is identical
except that, in the second paragraph, the "but do state" is replaced by
"but do not state".
>
> > If the Rules other than this one, as a whole, provide that an action CAN
> be
> > performed but do not specify any entities as being capable of performing
> > that action, any person CAN perform that action with Agoran Consent.
> >
> > For the purposes of this Rule, the Rules provide a mechanism for an
> action
> > to be performed even if they specify a mechanism with a precondition
> which
> > is not currently met, and they specify that an entity can perform that
> > action even if no appropriate entity currently exists. This Rule defers
> to
> > all Rules which permit actions to be performed by specific mechanisms.
>
> Oh, I hadn’t noticed this clause. But I’m not sure if it works. I’d argue
> that providing an alternate mechanism to do something isn’t a conflict
> between the rules, so I’m not sure this deference does anything.
>
I agree, but I'd rather have the clause in there in case I'm wrong.
-Alexis
Re: BUS: [Proposal] Deputisation timeliness
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 18:03, Jason Cobb via agora-business <
agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Deputisation timeliness
>
> AI: 3
>
> Author: Jason Cobb
>
> Co-authors: Alexis
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2160 to read, in whole:
>
> {
>
> A player acting as emself (the deputy) CAN perform an action ordinarily
> reserved for an office-holder as if e held the office if
>
> 1. the player does not hold that office;
>
I have two other suggestions after thinking about how to reduce Cyan
Ribbon shenanigans and make it a more interesting thing to obtain that
genuinely requires working the officer's duties. First, make it so that a
player cannot have held the office in the preceding 14 days either; this
gives a space for another player to take the office so that a player cannot
immediately unresign and, more importantly, prevents a player from
resigning an office then immediately deputizing back into it for a Cyan
Ribbon. Suggested wording "The player has not at any point in the last 14
days held the office."
>
> 2. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, other than
> by deputisation, if e held the office;
>
Second, make it so that the person must not be already able to perform the
action. Suggested wording: "it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform
the action, other than by deputisation, if e held the office, and, except
where the action is to publish information, would not be possible
otherwise;"
-Alexis
BUS: [Proposal] Help with Forgotten Announcements, Support Improvements
Proposal: On Possibility (AI=1)
{{{
Enact a new power-1 rule entitled "Default Mechanisms" reading as follows:
{
If the Rules other than this one, as a whole, provide that a person CAN
perform an action, but do not state the mechanism by which e can do so, e
CAN perform it by announcement.
If the Rules other than this one, as a whole, provide that a non-person
entity CAN perform an action, but do state the mechanism by which e can do
so, any person CAN cause that entity to perform that action with Agoran
Consent.
If the Rules other than this one, as a whole, provide that an action CAN be
performed but do not specify any entities as being capable of performing
that action, any person CAN perform that action with Agoran Consent.
For the purposes of this Rule, the Rules provide a mechanism for an action
to be performed even if they specify a mechanism with a precondition which
is not currently met, and they specify that an entity can perform that
action even if no appropriate entity currently exists. This Rule defers to
all Rules which permit actions to be performed by specific mechanisms.
}
}}}
Proposal: Support of the Person (AI=3, coauthors=G.)
{{{
Amend Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) by:
1. Replacing "However, the previous sentence notwithstanding, the initiator
of the intent is not eligible to support it." with "Announcing intent to
perform an action implicitly announces support for that action; such
support may be withdrawn as per usual."
2. Replacing "The action is to be performed With N support, and there are fewer
than than N Supporters of that intent." with "The action is to be performed
With N support, and there equal to or fewer than than N Supporters of that
intent."
3. Replacing "The action is to be performed with N Agoran consent, and
the number
of Supporters of the intent is less than or equal to N times the number of
Objectors to the intent." with "The action is to be performed with N Agoran
consent, and the number of Supporters of the intent is less than or equal
to O or less than N * O, where O is the number of Objectors to the intent."
}}}
-Alexis
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3793 judged FALSE (zombies work but not for Gaelan)
On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 at 11:40, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 1/26/2020 7:38 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote: > > Alexis wrote: > >> I'm not sold on this, or on the precedent. > >> > >> R2125 is clear that actions can only be performed by the methods > >> *explicitly* specified. It seems to me that it closes the door to > methods > >> of performing actions being specified by implication, even by necessary > >> implication. I think it requires a conclusion that zombies are broken > (cf. > >> the text of the rules taking precedence). > > > > I would have said that auction-as-a-method was *explicitly* specified, > > just not *clearly* specified. IOW, although its meaning is probably not > > obvious on a cursory inspection - and I don't think it was the intention > > of the original author, either - I don't see any other plausible > > interpretation of the text in R2545. "An Auction is a way" (syn. method) > > "for entities to give away items in exchange for a currency"; it just > > *is*, there's no subjectivity or subtle implication to it. > > Similar to the precedent of CFJ 3659 which found that something could be > "unambiguous" but not "clear": > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3659 > (that's my personal favorite among all the win-by-Apathy attempts I've ever > seen btw). > > However, the dictionary definition of "explicit" also seems to embody > clarity: > "explicit: stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or > doubt" or "explicit: fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, > implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent". > > -G. > I think this needs to be addressed properly in the judgment. I intend, with 2 support, to group-file a motion to reconsider CFJ 3793. I will likely have more argument on this but not at the moment, figure I should get the intent going though. -Alexis
BUS: Re: DIS: [CFJ] Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8280-8286
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 at 20:38, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > > H. Arbitor: I’d just like to make sure this CFJ gets processed—I forgot to > tag the subject line, so it may have slipped through the cracks. > > Gaelan Blatant attempt to sneak something Gaelan missed: I CFJ on "Gaelan CAN, by announcement, award emself the patent title of 'The Powerless'.", requesting linked assignment with the CFJ upthread. -Alexis
BUS: [CFJs] Why not establish some housekeeping precedent?
I call CFJs on the following four statements, requesting linked assignment: "It is POSSIBLE for a player, having given appropriate notice and received Agoran satisfaction, to clean Rule 2496 by replacing the word 'result' in the phrase 'times the adoption index of the result' with either of 'decision' or 'proposal', at eir option." "It is POSSIBLE for a player, having given appropriate notice and received Agoran satisfaction, to clean Rule 2496 by replacing the word 'result' in the phrase 'times the adoption index of the result' with at least one of 'decision' or 'proposal'." "If a judgment had ruled that the word 'result' in the phrase 'times the adoption index of the result' in Rule 2496 was properly interpreted as 'proposal', it would be POSSIBLE for a player, having given appropriate notice and received Agoran satisfaction, to clean that rule by replacing that word 'result' with 'proposal'." "If a judgment had ruled that the word 'result' in the phrase 'times the adoption index of the result' in Rule 2496 was properly interpreted as 'proposal', it would be POSSIBLE for a player, having given appropriate notice and received Agoran satisfaction, to clean that rule by replacing that word 'result' with 'decision'." Arguments: Note that the first two are not strictly parallel to the second two, as the first two are designed to avoid forcing the judge to interpret of Rule 2496, and allow a "either or, but I don't know which" judgment, while the latter two are predicated on an interpretation and consequently focus on specific replacements. A cleaning must, platonically, be limited in scope to fixes to spelling, grammar, and similar. One of the items in scope for a cleaning is "whether a synonym or abbreviation is used in place of a word or phrase". However, I note that there is no direct requirement that there be no semantic change introduced, other than by the fact that it must be a "correction". The rule as written refers to the adoption index of the result, but results (presumably synonymous with outcomes?) have no adoption index. It is clear, that the intended interpretation is the adoption index of either the proposal or the decision, but it is not entirely clear which one. At present, however, there are no effects that can change the AI of a decision, so it's a moot point, but it would become significant if there were. So, it seems clear that the rule is ambiguous as-is, and that it would be a correction to replace it with either "decision" or "proposal". Since there are only two reasonable interpretations of the rule, it must be the case that exactly one of these is a semantic change. The other would certainly be a correction, by clarifying the rule. Is the semantic change a correction as well? It would certainly resolve the ambiguity, so arguably it is. My gut tells me that it would be a correction as long as the rule was generally ambiguous; once precedent was established (and noting that, because precedent has a direct impact on the interpretation of a rule; a rule's interpretation may platonically change as a result of the creation of a precedent, even an incorrect one) it would no longer be (aside: this is a fascinating line of thinking I had not considered before about the question of platonic interpretation). I'd argue that "synonym" is the only ground of cleanliness under which the change could be made, so in order to be valid, it must be changing whether a synonym is used in case of a word or phrase. In this case, the change would ostensibly be to no longer use the synonym "result" in place of "decision" or "proposal", as the case may be. So what constitutes a synonym? If the ambiguity were already resolved in precedent, as in the last two CFJs, then we can argue that the words are synonymous in context, even if they aren't ordinarily. But would it be too much of a stretch to extend this argument to if, say, due to a splice error the rule read "the adoption index of the prosion"? Could "prosion", a non-word but something that could still be reasonably disambiguated, be seen to have a synonym at all? I think not. This would arguably mean that replacing it with another non-word would also be a synonym, since there is little reason to think that replacing one non-word with another could affect interpretation. So I think that the words must have some reasonable connection to be argued as synonyms, regardless of the specific in-context interpretation. If the ambiguity had not already been resolved, then we can't rely on the above in any case, and we have to find another, less contextual way to evaluate synonymousness. It seems clear that idiosyncratic Agoran definitions could contribute to this, for instance when two words are explicitly defined as synonymous. "result" is not defined by Agora; it is however used as synonymous with "outcome" in Rule 2168. What about plain-English synonyms? "result" can sometimes be approximately synonymous to "decision", such as when referring to a
BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8280-8286
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 at 22:29, Jason Cobb via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > PROPOSAL 8283 (Ex Post Ribbon) > FOR (6): Alexis, Aris, Falsifian, G., Gaelan, twg > AGAINST (0): > PRESENT (2): Jason Cobb, Rance > BALLOTS: 8 > AI (F/A): 18/0 (AI=3.0) > OUTCOME: ADOPTED > I award myself 18 coins for this proposal. -Alexis
BUS: Judgement on CFJ 3794, and Ribbons
I earn 7 coins for glitter on a Cyan Ribbon. I judge CFJ 3794 FALSE. Per my reasoning on CFJ 3783: Thus, I find that the the proper interpretation of Rule 2602 is that, when a player earns a ribbon that e already owns, that player can gain income for that ribbon one time, but e must do so prior to earning any other ribbons, and within 7 days." I earn 12 coins for glitter on a Blue Ribbon. I award myself a Transparent Ribbon: Red: Proposal 8283 Orange: Proposal 8283 Blue: CFJ 3794 Emerald: Herald election Cyan: Deputization for PM just now -Alexis
Re: BUS: bored of liquidity, need to invest
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 at 14:52, Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > I pay a fee of 1000 coins to win the game. > > > [Note: vaguely emotional. The 1,000 coin purse was a stake that started > with > a land scam in 2017, was built through an unbalanced (not scam, just > unbalanced) land game, then survived 2 reset attempts (again through scams, > the second scam in partnership with D. Margaux which is why e's the other > person with 1000+ coins). Feels like mini end-of-era.] > I don't have any reason to believe this doesn't work, but I am not sure the last self-ratification of a Treasuror's report off the top of my head so I won't do the Champion award quite yet. However, I do deputize for Prime Minister to appoint G. Speaker. -Alexis
BUS: Re: OFF: Re: Herald Election
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 09:52, Kerim Aydin via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > The Herald Election is uncontested, with Alexis as the only candidate. > > I declare Alexis the winner of the Herald election (installing em in > office). > > On 1/19/2020 1:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > I initiate an election for Herald (as the officeholder). > > > > This is not for a ribbon; the relatively minor work of Herald is just > that > > little straw too much when the work of Arbitor is very busy. > I award myself an Emerald Ribbon for winning this election. -Alexis
BUS: Re: Cleanings
On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 at 23:27, Alexis Hunt wrote: > I intend, without objection, to make the following cleanings (in numerical > order if I do not specify otherwise when I resolve the intents): > > - Rules 879 and 2556 by replacing each instance of "Agoran Decision" with > "Agoran decision". > - Rules 1950, 1551, and 2555 by replacing each instance of "power > threshold" with "Power Threshold". > > Rule 2603 needs word-wrapping as well. > Having received no objection, I do so. [Aris, I appreciate your position, but I will prefer consistency in the immediate term; I will support an attempt to change capitalization more consistently in general.] -Alexis
BUS: [Proposal] A degree of inefficiency
Proposal: A Degree of Inefficiency (AI=3)
{{{
Amend Rule 2595 (Performing a Dependent Action) by inserting ", and did not
subsequently withdraw, " immediately after "published" in the first
paragraph.
}}}
-Alexis
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8287-8307
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 22:23, Aris Merchant via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran > Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal > pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the > quorum is 5, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid > options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are > conditional votes). > > IDAuthor(s)AITitle > --- > 8287 twg 2.0 Blot Stabilisation > PRESENT > 8288 omd 1.0 Glitteral > FOR > 8289 Alexis 1.0 You're Banned from the Theater > FOR > 8290 G. 3.0 More Headroom > FOR > 8291 Bernie, [1] 3.0 Interesting Chambers v3.1 > FOR > 8292 Bernie, twg 3.0 Self-Ratification Simplification Act > ENDORSE the first of omd, G., Falsifian who has a vote on this proposal. > 8293 Bernie, twg 1.0 CFJ Bait > AGAINST > 8294 Bernie, twg 3.0 Authorial Intent > AGAINST > 8295 Bernie, twg, Alexis 3.0 Rewards Reform Act > CONDITIONAL: FOR if Proposal 8304 is going to be ADOPTED or if trying to resolve that condition causes circularity; AGAINST otherwise. > 8296 Aris, G. 1.0 Divergence > FOR > 8297 Aris 2.1 Imminent Failure > FOR > 8298 Aris, [2]2.0 Administrative Adjudication v3 > AGAINST > 8299 Aris, G. 3.0 The Reset Button v2 > ENDORSE G. > 8300 Aris 3.0 Patches > AGAINST > 8301 Aris, Jason Cobb 3.0 Consolidated Regulatory Recordkeeping > v2 > FOR > 8302 Aris 1.5 Generic Petitions > FOR > 8303 Aris, [3]3.0 Contract Patency v3 > PRESENT > 8304 Bernie, twg, Jason Cobb 3.0 Rewards Reform Act - v1.1 Patch > FOR > 8305 Alexis 3.0 Keeping Up With the Times > FOR > 8306 Gaelan 3.0 Deregistration > AGAINST > 8307 D. Margaux 3.0 Deregistration > ENDORSE D. Margaux -Alexis
BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8280-8286
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 at 22:29, Jason Cobb via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > RESOLUTION OF PROPOSALS 8280-8286 > = CoE: Several of my votes were endorsements and this is not reflected in this resolution; they are just listed as unconditional. -Alexis
Re: BUS: Warranty
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 at 21:56, Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 1/19/2020 6:21 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business wrote: > > While peer review should still happen, I think that we should start the > > process now. I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to award twg the Patent > Title > > Juris Doctor of Nomic. > > I object, for both of the reasons noted by Aris: peer-review time (e.g. a > call for comments) and the use of the J.D. > > As Alexis may be the next Herald and may be the one to finish the award, > I'll just remove this objection in a few days personally - the thesis is > part of the "permanent record" and it's worth giving time for comment and > possible corrections. > > But bad on us! - the recent introduction of the J.D. did not in fact > document that the purpose (at the time) for introduction of the degree - to > give a category to which excellent CFJ judgements (scholarly to the level > of > a degree) should be applied. Very bad on us for not noting that in the > text. > > -G. > Ahh, in this case I'll withdraw the intent for now so it can be further discussed. But the thinking I had was that the degree is analagous to the Juris Doctor conferred to law school graduates who can subsequently go into practice. and so it should be focused on things that are particularly relevant to the practice of nomic, as opposed to purely academic/scholarly interest. We would have thought that an "academic" degree (Bachelor or anything listed below) should be reserved for more academic publications. -Alexis
BUS: [Proposal] Gender neutrality in degrees
It's a new thing from some universities to offer gender neutral degree
titles, and it seems in keeping with the Agoran spirit of gender neutrality
to follow. I'm using the specific titles from my alma mater, in case
anyone's curious on the origin.
Proposal: Keeping Up With the Times (AI=3)
{{{
Amend Rule 1367 (Degrees) by replacing "Bachelor" with "Baccalaureate" and
by replacing "Master" with "Magisteriate".
Rename every instance of the Patent Titles "Bachelor of Nomic" and "Master
of Nomic" accordingly.
}}}
(for the record, since some may assume otherwise, I have no personal
feelings one way or the other, and I will not be offended in the slightest
if this proposal is voted down)
-Alexis
Re: BUS: Warranty
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 at 20:42, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > What I will not do, barring sufficiently persuasive arguments to the > contrary, is make a blanket statement that I am not planning or engaging > in any scams or exploits. I don't want to end up in a situation where I > am (or _anybody_ is) totally unable to take part in this part of the > game, just because it is considered suspicious to not currently be under > a pledge/warranty forbidding it, and I'm concerned that complying now > with your request would lead Agora towards a social climate of that > type. > Hear, hear! Notice of Honour: +1: twg for eir impassioned defence of the core of Nomic gameplay. -1: Aris for eir persistent opposition to the core of Nomic gameplay. I submit the above essay as a thesis titled "Letter to an Anti-Scamster: > On the Importance of Loopholes in Agoran Culture", with intent to > qualify for a degree. > > -twg > I was considering nominating this for a thesis myself, which indicates strongly that it deserves one. J.N. is, I believe, appropriate for a thesis focused on the practice of Nomic law, which this very much is. While peer review should still happen, I think that we should start the process now. I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to award twg the Patent Title Juris Doctor of Nomic. -Alexis
BUS: Re: OFF: Herald Election
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 at 16:07, Kerim Aydin via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > I initiate an election for Herald (as the officeholder). > I become a candidate.
Re: BUS: blatant Lime bait
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 at 00:04, Alexis Hunt via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Here are some random ideas that should be easy but I won't submit: > > Amend rule 2438 (Ribbons) by replacing "The Tailor CAN award a Gray Ribbon > by announcement, unless e has done so earlier in the month." with "The > Tailor CAN, unless e has done so earlier in the month, award a Gray Ribbon > to a player with support. A player is ineligible to support an intent to > award emself a Gray Ribbon." > > Repeal rule 2603 or provide a manner for determining the office's holder, > as there's currently no way for that office to be held. > > Clean up the last sentence of rule 2601. > > Amend the Prime Minister's voting strength bonus to be more meaningful. > > Add a reset clause to Rule 2483 to prevent players from stacking wins. > > Unify various concepts of having to not violate obligations, e.g. for > ribbons & coin rewards. > > Add a cooloff period to wins by the same mechanism, and make wins by > proposal explicitly work again. > > Allow win by paradox to designate co-conspirators. > > I pledge that if, within the time window of this pledge, I receive a Lime > Ribbon, I will transfer one half of my coins to the player or players whose > proposals made me eligible, divided evenly rounded down, and I will not > attempt to defeat this pledge by fraudulent transfer of coins. > > Alexis > > (I admit I might be a bit early to RtRW.) > One more: a way for a player to voluntarily enter zombie servitude, as an economic incentive. -Alexis
BUS: blatant Lime bait
Here are some random ideas that should be easy but I won't submit: Amend rule 2438 (Ribbons) by replacing "The Tailor CAN award a Gray Ribbon by announcement, unless e has done so earlier in the month." with "The Tailor CAN, unless e has done so earlier in the month, award a Gray Ribbon to a player with support. A player is ineligible to support an intent to award emself a Gray Ribbon." Repeal rule 2603 or provide a manner for determining the office's holder, as there's currently no way for that office to be held. Clean up the last sentence of rule 2601. Amend the Prime Minister's voting strength bonus to be more meaningful. Add a reset clause to Rule 2483 to prevent players from stacking wins. Unify various concepts of having to not violate obligations, e.g. for ribbons & coin rewards. Add a cooloff period to wins by the same mechanism, and make wins by proposal explicitly work again. Allow win by paradox to designate co-conspirators. I pledge that if, within the time window of this pledge, I receive a Lime Ribbon, I will transfer one half of my coins to the player or players whose proposals made me eligible, divided evenly rounded down, and I will not attempt to defeat this pledge by fraudulent transfer of coins. Alexis (I admit I might be a bit early to RtRW.)
BUS: Cleanings
I intend, without objection, to make the following cleanings (in numerical order if I do not specify otherwise when I resolve the intents): - Rules 879 and 2556 by replacing each instance of "Agoran Decision" with "Agoran decision". - Rules 1950, 1551, and 2555 by replacing each instance of "power threshold" with "Power Threshold". Rule 2603 needs word-wrapping as well.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8280-8286
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 03:14, Aris Merchant via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran > Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal > pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the > quorum is 4, 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 > --- > 8280 Murphy, Jason Cobb 3.0 Resolve the troubles v1.1 > ENDORSE G. > 8281 Gaelan 1.0 Nothing to see here, Rule 1030 v2 > AGAINST > 8282 Falsifian1.0 Let's do this the hard way v1.1 > ENDORSE G. > 8283 Alexis 3.0 Ex Post Ribbon > FOR > 8284 Alexis 3.0 Line-Item Power > FOR > 8285 Alexis 3.0 Line-Item Roulette > FOR > 8286 Aris 1.0 I Forbid Vetos! > AGAINST Alexis
BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3788 Assigned to Alexis
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 15:08, Kerim Aydin via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > The below CFJ is 3788. I assign it to Alexis. > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3788 > > === CFJ 3788 === > > If the two documents quoted above were ratified, the first one > would have the effect of modifying the historical record twice and > the publicity switches of the relevant fora twice, in the manner > stated as interpretation a above. > > == > I recuse myself from this case. After 3783, I don't think I have extra energy for this case. -Alexis
Re: BUS: CFJ 3792 Judgement
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 12:12, Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > To that end, this Court finds that, in order for a document to "purport" to > be a Report, it must contain sufficient evidence of the publisher's intent, > that the specific publication be a self-ratifying report (and if a report > is > by definition self-ratifying, any document that does not contain such > intent > is not, by definition, the self-ratifying report). To give discretion to > the Officer, the purporting can take multiple forms - a clear heading of > "Report", within-message delimiters, a new subject line, or if it's a > quoted > message a "PF", etc. > > H. Promotor Aris's style of Promotor Pool report has, for some time, been a > single sentence inserted with a proposal distribution, tucked within the > distribution itself. (e.g. "the proposal pool is empty" [0]) without > delimiters separating from the distribution. At some times in the past, > when I've noticed that a proposal I wrote was missing from the > distribution, > it has been confusing for me to figure out which part of the "distribution > document" to CoE. However, as long as the Pool was empty, and the > statement > was a clear statement of fact about the time of publication, it (just > barely, IMO) qualified as the Proposal Pool report. > Actually, on a further look, I'm suspicious of this logic. Enough that I intend, with 2 support, to group-file a Motion to Reconsider this judgment (I will not resolve the intent if there's something I'm missing but would like to get the intent out there). I see two issues with this logic. The first is quite minor and easily fixed, which is that not all reports are self-ratifying. So the Rulekeepor, for instance, would never publish with intent that it be self-ratifying. But such could be simply addressed by a standard such as "intent that, if the entire report was self-ratifying, that the report would indeed be a self-ratifying report" or the like. More deeply, though, CFJ 3645 held that the Rulekeepor could publish eir report by reference to an external URL at which the report was present. Presumably, because this ruling is grounded in the obligation of Rule 2143, this ruling would apply to other reports as well. But such an "out-of-line" report could *never* be self-ratifying, because Rule 2201 provides that only public documents---defined by Rule 1551 as parts of public messages---can be self-ratifying. A report not sent to a Public Forum directly is thus not a public document and incapable of self-ratification. We could also consider a hypothetical of "This is not a Promotor's Report, but it is a true statement about the game state: the proposal pool is currently empty." I believe that this statement would meet the criteria of Rule 2143 while at the same time I would be hard-pressed to believe that it was self-ratifying. The critical distinction, then, is that the obligation to publish a report is not an obligation to publish a document (much less a public document) purporting to be a report, but purporting is required to invoke self-ratification. The court's ruling is thus out of step with CFJ 3645 and the text of the rules. Alexis
Re: BUS: Referee Election
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 19:59, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Alexis wrote: > > I initiate an election for Referee. I become a candidate. > > > > Campaign speech: I will use the power to impose Summary Judgement > > capriciously and arbitrarily, however, not against anyone who votes for > me. > > This fails; you are not the incumbent or the ADoP, so you require 2 > support to initiate an election. > > But if you want a shot at it then I'm game. I initiate an election for > Referee, becoming a candidate. > > Campaign speech: I will continue to not use the power to impose Summary > Judgement capriciously or arbitrarily, and judge and sentence fairly to > the best of my ability. > > -twg > My bad; I misremembered and thought that the 2 support didn't apply to interim offices. I become a candidate for Referee per the above campaign speech. Alexis
BUS: Referee Election
I initiate an election for Referee. I become a candidate. Campaign speech: I will use the power to impose Summary Judgement capriciously and arbitrarily, however, not against anyone who votes for me. Alexis
