Re: BUS: Intent to Delegate
Juniper wrote: I intend, with Agoran consent, to flip the Delegate switch of Tailor to myself. I support.
Re: BUS: Intent to vacate
Janet wrote: On 5/19/24 18:12, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: I intend, with notice, to take a vacation from Tailor. (Someone on Discord expressed interest in delegating for it.) This fails, it's 7 days notice. Bah. I intend, with 7 days notice, to take a vacation from Tailor.
BUS: Intent to vacate
I intend, with notice, to take a vacation from Tailor. (Someone on Discord expressed interest in delegating for it.)
BUS: Re: OFF: [Geologist] (@ADoP) being responsible
4st wrote: I deputize as Geologist. I created this office, and the rule, and I should follow thru. At least now that I'm back. (please CoE/help for anything I missed. the quarter was handled by sara, or should have been, and I'm just doing things according to the current rule, so if there were changes enacted that affect crystals at certain points in time, definitely missed those. ALSO, thanks sara in the interrim!) This is the Geologist's weekly report of the 15th of May, 2024. Last report (which self-ratified) was April 10th. 4st, I recommend announcing something like "If I have not already done so, I deputise as Geologist to publish the Geologist's report". I CFJ on the following statement, barring 4st: "In the message quoted in evidence, 4st deputised as Geologist to publish the Geologist's report." Caller's arguments: I think this was sufficiently clear to satisfy clause 3) of the Deputisation rule. Clauses 1), 2), and 4) should be uncontroversial, and the rest are n/a because Geologist was vacant. Caller's evidence: the above-quoted message, and the following excerpt from Rule 2160/24 (Power=3), Deputisation: A player acting as emself (the deputy) CAN perform an action ordinarily reserved for an office-holder as if e held the office if all of the following are true: 1) The rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of holding that office, to perform the action. (This requirement is fulfilled by the deputy performing the action.) 2) It would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, other than by deputisation, if e held the office. 3) The deputy, when performing the action, announces that e is doing so by deputisation or by temporary deputisation. 4) The deputy has not held the office in the past 7 days. (If the office is vacant, then the remaining items in this list need not be true.) [etc.]
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9111-9113
I vote as follows (and have updated the spreadsheet): 9111~ ais523 2.2 Resolve The Paradox FOR 9112~ Murphy 1.7 What's a crime? FOR 9113~ Murphy 1.0 No apathetic apathy FOR
BUS: Various actions (attn Spendor, Illuminator, Absurdor)
(Yachay transferred 5 Spendies to me on May 15, but I don't remember whether I still had any before that.) Two times, I pay a fee of 2 Spendies to gain 1 Radiance. If I have at least 2 Spendies, then I pay a fee of 2 Spendies to gain 1 Radiance. I push the boulder.
Re: BUS: (@Collector, @Spendor) teehee
4st wrote: By announcement, I declare apathy as a recipient of a welcome package. For each intent to Declare Apathy (as defined by Rule 2465, Victory by Apathy), I object to it.
Re: BUS: [Promotor] Silver Quill Intents
snail wrote: I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to award juan the Patent Title "Silver Quill 2023" for authoring Proposal 8992 ( Camusian Dream v2). The boulder has remained in motion for almost 11 months now, so I feel like it's deserving. I support.
Re: BUS: Transfer - Spendies to Murphy (@Spendor)
Yachay wrote: I transfer 5 Spendies to Murphy I transfer 1 Murphy stamp to Yachay.
BUS: Proposals (attn Promotor)
For each of the following, I submit it. Proposal: What's a crime? (AI = 1.7) Amend Rule 2478 (Justice) by replacing each instance of "crime" with "infraction". Proposal: No apathetic apathy Amend Rule 2465 (Victory by Apathy) by appending this text: A player SHALL NOT announce intent to Declare Apathy and then fail to Declare Apathy before that intent ceases to be ripe; such failure is the Class 5 Infraction of Not Reading the Room.
BUS: Cleaning (attn Rulekeepor)
I intend, without objection, to clean the rule "Sortition Procedure" by replacing each instance of "sorition" with "sortition".
BUS: Doing my part (attn Absurdor)
I push the boulder.
BUS: New week, new push (attn Absurdor)
I push the boulder. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy2mHfQBfLA
BUS: Spending (attn Spendor, Geologist, Collector, Illuminator)
I pay a fee of 11 spendies to increase the size of Crystal 2642 by 1. If the L owns a blob stamp, then I pay a fee of 5 Spendies to transfer it to myself. Two times, I pay a fee of 2 Spendies to increase my radiance by 1. If I did not transfer a stamp above, then two times, I pay a fee of 2 Spendies to increase my radiance by 1.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9102-9110
I vote as follows (and have updated the spreadsheet): 9102~ juniper 1.0 An Overpowering Proposal PRESENT 9103~ juniper 1.0 Dictator Takes the Quorum AGAINST (unclear: "eir vote counts" = "eir voting power is"?) 9104~ snail 1.0 Stamp Raffle fix endorse Collector 9105~ snail 1.0 Stamp Raffle Repeal endorse Collector 9106* snail...[1] 3.0 No Overpowered Deputizations FOR 9107~ Jaff2.0 Market Stone Pricing endorse Stonemason 9108~ nix, Janet 2.0 Less Smooth, More Immune endorse Stonemason 9109~ nix, Janet 2.0 Sortition FOR 9110* Janet 3.0 Delegate removal FOR
BUS: Judgement of CFJs 4075 and 4076
Attempted actions (#2 through #5 were all in the same message):
1) ais523 grants Promise Q to the Library.
2) ais523 takes Promise Q from the Library per R2618 "Any player CAN".
3) ais523 transfers Promise Q to Yachay.
4) ais523 takes Promise Q from the Library per R2618 "Any player CAN".
5) ais523 cashes Promise Q.
Promise Q is irrevocable (so ais523 cannot take it via "The creator of
a promise CAN"), and would cause ais523 to grant emself a promise
"Awakening".
CFJ 4075: "Yachay CAN cash Promise Q, either by directly cashing it, or
by transferring it from the Library to emself and then cashing it."
CFJ 4076: "I CAN cash the promise 'Awakening'."
There is no reason to believe that #1 failed. The question is whether
the remaining steps succeed in creating a paradox. Possible
interpretations:
a) #2 succeeds (requires that #5 will succeed),
then #3 succeeds,
then #4 fails (the Library no longer owns Promise Q),
then #5 fails (ais523 no longer owns Promise Q), contradiction.
b) #2 fails (requires that #5 will fail),
then #3 fails (ais523 does not own Promise Q),
then #4 succeeds (requires that #5 will succeed),
then #5 succeeds (ais523 owns Promise Q via #4), contradiction.
c) #2 fails (requires that #5 will fail),
then #3 fails (ais523 does not own Promise Q),
then #4 fails (requires that #5 will fail),
then #5 fails (ais523 does not own Promise Q).
Either a) or b) leads to judgements of PARADOXICAL, whereas c) leads to
judgements of FALSE. So now the question is whether this text from Rule
217 (Interpreting the Rules) rules out c):
Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied
using direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that
can be concluded from the assumption that a statement about
rule-defined concepts is false does not constitute proof that it
is true.
I accept the caller's argument that it does, and was intended to do so
(to block more malicious situations such as "if I don't have a
dictatorship then a paradox arises").
I judge 4075 PARADOXICAL.
I judge 4076 PARADOXICAL.
For completeness, here's some research on past successful paradoxes,
though none of it appears to set an obviously relevant precedent.
Summary of past CFJs judged PARADOXICAL:
* CFJ 3907 ("I pledge to violate this pledge")
* CFJ 3901 (a promise granting and cashing a copy of itself, after
which Rule 2618 was amended to block such recursion)
* CFJ 3828 (a rule assigning an asset to an ambiguous player, after
which Rule 2576 was amended to transfer such assets to the L)
Summary of past CFJs judged UNDECIDABLE (and pre-dating the Rule 217
text above, which was added by Proposal 7584 in August 2013):
* CFJs 3249 and 3334 (self-reference via conditions attached to
promises)
* CFJ 3240 ("'Ozymandias has won' has the same truth value as this
statement", where Ozymandias had not won)
* CFJ 3234 ("ehird is capable of evoking the power of UNDEAD", where
nothing obviously defined that one way or the other)
* CFJs 3212 and 3220 (self-reference regarding the legality of
claiming the CFJ's statement)
* CFJ 3087 ("The game of Agora, but not any player of it, can..."
while Agora was defined as a player)
* CFJ 2878 (similar to 3212 and 3220)
* CFJ 2650 (separate clauses of Rule 2166 stating "this asset is
owned by the L" and "this asset can't be transferred", despite
Rule 2240 which did exist at the time)
* CFJ 2543 (self-reference involving ADoP report including
report-last-published dates)
* CFJ 2469 (Curry's paradox: "if this statement is true, then ais523
can win by announcement")
* CFJ 2446 (direct liar paradox)
* CFJ 2423 (ambiguous rule change)
* CFJ 2115 (self-reference regarding the legality of judging it FALSE)
* CFJs 1980 and 1982 (self-reference involving contract definitions)
* CFJs 1883 and 1884 (question as statement, pre-dating the period when
such CFJs were basically judged as "The answer to is yes")
* CFJ 1787 (similar to 2115)
* CFJ 780 ("X violated Y by Z", where X clearly violated some rule but
not necessarily Y; these days we would probably ask for more info,
then judge DISMISS if it wasn't produced promptly enough)
* CFJ 771 (self-contradictory rule: "a player may X" vs "the Y reduces
X as requested")
I was looking for (but couldn't find) one or two other cases that G. was
involved in, along the lines of:
* A player plays card X which gives em card Y, then plays card Y
which retroactively negates eir playing card X
* The Arbitor (maybe named CotC at the time) ambiguously assigns a
CFJ to either X or Y, both of whom would be in a position where eir
judgement would imply that the other one was assigned the CFJ
Re: BUS: Petitions [further attn. Promotor, Arbitor, Tailor, ADoP]
Janet wrote: I petition the ADoP to solicit nominations for Employee of the Year 2023. I intend to award Employee of the Year to snail and Janet. adop=> select p.player_name, o.office_name, o.complexity, count(*) from events e join players p on p.player_id = e.acting_player_id join offices o on o.office_id = e.office_id where e.event_timestamp >= '2023-01-01' and e.event_timestamp < '2024-01-01' and e.event_type_id = 19 group by p.player_name, o.office_name, o.complexity order by p.player_name, o.office_name; player_name | office_name | complexity | count -+--++--- 4st | Arbitor | 2 | 2 4st | Geologist| 1 | 5 4st | Herald | 2 |18 4st | Referee | 2 |18 4st | Ricemastor | 1 | 1 4st | Webmastor| 1 | 4 ais523 | Herald | 2 | 1 ais523 | Referee | 2 |26 G. | Arbitor | 2 |26 Janet | Mad Engineer | 1 |10 Janet | Rulekeepor | 3 |62 Janet | Stonemason | 1 |53 juan| Absurdor | 0 |27 juan| Buttonmastor | 1 | 5 juan| Registrar| 1 |69 Kate| Arbitor | 2 | 1 Murphy | ADoP | 1 |49 Murphy | Tailor | 1 |12 nix | Collector| 2 |17 nix | Herald | 2 |29 snail | Collector| 2 |25 snail | Dream Keeper | 1 |42 snail | Herald | 2 | 2 snail | Horsened | 1 |21 snail | Illuminator | 1 | 4 snail | Notary | 2 |14 snail | Promotor | 3 |40 snail | Referee | 2 | 1 Yachay | Ricemastor | 1 | 1 (29 rows)
BUS: Spending (attn Spendor, Geologist, Collector)
I spend 11 spendies to increase the size of crystal 2642 by 1. I spend 5 spendies to transfer the L's Yachay stamp to myself.
BUS: Weekly actions (attn Stonemason, Collector, Absurdor)
I wield the Minty Stone. I push the boulder.
BUS: Weekly maintenance (attn Stonemason, Collector, Absurdor)
I wield the Minty Stone. I push the boulder.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9096-9101
I vote as follows (and have updated the spreadsheet): 9096~ Janet 2.0 Stone cleanups v3 endorse Stonemason 9097* Janet 3.0 Festival strength restrictions FOR 9098~ snail 1.0 Welcome Spendies FOR 9099~ snail 2.0 Quantum Superstone endorse Stonemason 9100~ snail 2.0 Spending Stone endorse Stonemason 9101~ snail 2.0 Unstable Stone endorse Stonemason
BUS: Weekly actions (attn Collector, Stonemason, Absurdor)
I wield the Minty Stone. I push the boulder.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9087-9095
I vote as follows (and have updated the spreadsheet): 9087~ Janet 1.0 A repeal PRESENT 9088~ nix... [1] 2.0 Spendie Fixie FOR 9089~ Janet 1.0 Who are you, again, again? FOR 9090~ R. Lee 1.0 More instability so crystals can actually change hands FOR 9091~ Janet, Aris 1.0 Welcome package fix, again, again FOR 9092~ ais523 2.0 Paying your time FOR 9093~ ais523 2.0 Stamp down on crime FOR 9094~ snail, R. Lee 1.0 More instability with a hyphen FOR 9095~ snail 1.0 Spendy Sizing FOR
Re: BUS: Various actions (attn Stonemason, Collector, Absurdor, Notary) (and Illuminator)
I wrote:
I wield the Minty Stone.
I wield the Hot Potato Stone, specifying Jaff.
I push the boulder.
I'm about to go on the road for a week, hence getting ADoP report out
of the way a few days earlier than usual. Feel free to delegate by
Agoran Consent for either or both of my offices; may as well field-test
the new systems. And on that note...
I create the following promise titled "ADoP Delegation 2024-04-04" and
transfer it to the Library:
{
Cashing conditions: The bearer is delegate for ADoP, and it is
2024-04-10 or earlier.
I go on Vacation as ADoP.
}
I create the following promise titled "Tailor Delegation 2024-04-04" and
transfer it to the Library:
{
Cashing conditions: The bearer is delegate for Tailor, and it is
2024-04-10 or earlier.
I go on Vacation as Tailor.
}
Tagging the Illuminator as well (for wielding Hot Potato). This message
contains no new game actions.
BUS: Various actions (attn Stonemason, Collector, Absurdor, Notary)
I wield the Minty Stone.
I wield the Hot Potato Stone, specifying Jaff.
I push the boulder.
I'm about to go on the road for a week, hence getting ADoP report out
of the way a few days earlier than usual. Feel free to delegate by
Agoran Consent for either or both of my offices; may as well field-test
the new systems. And on that note...
I create the following promise titled "ADoP Delegation 2024-04-04" and
transfer it to the Library:
{
Cashing conditions: The bearer is delegate for ADoP, and it is
2024-04-10 or earlier.
I go on Vacation as ADoP.
}
I create the following promise titled "Tailor Delegation 2024-04-04" and
transfer it to the Library:
{
Cashing conditions: The bearer is delegate for Tailor, and it is
2024-04-10 or earlier.
I go on Vacation as Tailor.
}
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4063 assigned to Murphy
Janet wrote:
On 3/31/24 14:11, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote:
nix wrote:
On 3/9/24 12:39, nix via agora-business wrote:
On 2/11/24 14:36, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
I CFJ, barring Maloney: "Proposal 9055, as part of its effect, enacted a
rule."
I number this CFJ 4063. I assign CFJ 4063 to Kate.
This has since been recused. I assign CFJ 4063 to Murphy.
I accept the caller's arguments and judge TRUE. In particular, while the
last line is of a form ("at future time T, event E happens") that is
generally ineffective if not part of a rule, some past players have
submitted proposals that attempted such non-rule declarations anyway,
so it's ambiguous whether the scope of "enact" was intended to include
that line.
The caller's arguments were arguments for FALSE.
Whoops, so they were. I hereby self-file a Motion to Reconsider CFJ
4063, and judge it FALSE.
BUS: Weekly stuff (attn Stonemason, Collector, Absurdor)
I wield the Minty Stone. I enter the raffle by paying a fee of 1 Murphy stamp. I push the boulder.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4063 assigned to Murphy
nix wrote:
On 3/9/24 12:39, nix via agora-business wrote:
On 2/11/24 14:36, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
I CFJ, barring Maloney: "Proposal 9055, as part of its effect, enacted a
rule."
I number this CFJ 4063. I assign CFJ 4063 to Kate.
This has since been recused. I assign CFJ 4063 to Murphy.
I accept the caller's arguments and judge TRUE. In particular, while the
last line is of a form ("at future time T, event E happens") that is
generally ineffective if not part of a rule, some past players have
submitted proposals that attempted such non-rule declarations anyway,
so it's ambiguous whether the scope of "enact" was intended to include
that line.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9073-9086
I vote as follows (and have updated the spreadsheet): 9073~ Kate, Gaelan1.0 In case of unexpected nonplayerhood FOR 9074* Janet 3.0 Close enough endorse Rulekeepor 9075* nix, Janet, kiako 3.0 No Hidden Ownership Restrictions FOR 9076* nix 3.0 FUNgibility PRESENT 9077~ snail 1.0 Less Fragile Crystals endorse Geologist 9078~ Janet 1.0 Empire fixes FOR 9079~ nix, Janet, kiako 2.0 Spendies v1.1 FOR 9080~ Gaelan, Kate1.0 One from the archives ~~endorse Vanyel~~ FOR 9081~ Gaelan 2.0 Don't humiliate the recently departed FOR 9082~ Gaelan 1.7 yes, yes, I got the memo FOR 9083* Janet 3.0 SLR ratification 2023-12-31 FOR 9084~ kiako 2.0 Oneironauts in the Ocean endorse Dream Keeper 9085~ ais523 1.0 Fix truthfulness loophole FOR 9086~ R. Lee 1.0 Trimming the most useless rule in the ruleset AGAINST
Re: BUS: Testing Agora of Empires @Everyone
R. Lee wrote: I intend, without two objections, to win the game as the records of Empireworld clearly demonstrate I have achieved 3 extraordinary feats I object. "Be it said" demonstrates nothing; I can say that I'm wearing a robe and wizard hat, while in fact doing no such thing. I also expect that players will generally object to such wins until such time as Empireworld acquires some non-trivial limits on (a) what counts as an extraordinary feat, and (b) what is required to achieve one.
BUS: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] New Arbitor in Town @kiako @Kate @Yachay @ais523 @Janet @Murphy
I wrote:
nix wrote:
I assign CFJ 4059 to Murphy.
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg45651.html
("As a result of the 2023 Agoran't Birthday Tournament, Murphy won the
game.")
Draft judgement:
Without performing an exhaustive analysis of the Agoran't archives, I'm
assuming that (a) either Kate or snail had a dictatorship, and (b) in
either case there were at least as many rules at the end as the
beginning. Accordingly, I judge FALSE.
Kate's dictatorship mainly depends on whether Festivity was set to 5,
due to "Festivity is 5." hidden in this ADoP report self-ratifying:
https://agoranomic.groups.io/g/agorant/message/230
If so, and if Kate indeed gained five Ribbons on 2023-08-31, and no one
else gained as many, then:
* Only Kate's vote counted on any proposal resolved after 230.
* Only Kate's support counted on any tabled action resolved after 230.
which should have been enough for eir dictatorship to become effective.
If Kate's dictatorship was effective, then this message brought the
number of rules up to 132 (equal to the starting number):
https://agoranomic.groups.io/g/agorant/message/374
unless (a) there were less than 118 rules beforehand (I think some rules
were repealed up to that point, but probably not that many), or (b) it
was ineffective for some other reason, despite the dictatorship being
effective in general.
If Kate's dictatorship didn't succeed, then it's likely (though not
guaranteed) that snail's did:
https://agoranomic.groups.io/g/agorant/message/195
https://agoranomic.groups.io/g/agorant/message/223
If snail's dictatorship was effective, then e enacted/repealed rules as
follows:
https://agoranomic.groups.io/g/agorant/message/325 (-1)
https://agoranomic.groups.io/g/agorant/message/326 (-1 +13)
https://agoranomic.groups.io/g/agorant/message/327 (+1)
https://agoranomic.groups.io/g/agorant/message/328 (+13 +13)
https://agoranomic.groups.io/g/agorant/message/371 (+1)
which again brought the number of rules up to at least 132, unless (a)
there were less than 93 rules beforehand, or (b) some of these were
ineffective for some other reason.
Judge's evidence:
Initiation of Agoran't
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-August/017297.html
Agoran't starting ruleset (132 rules)
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2023-June/051757.html
Recap of Agoran't messages (at least what they alleged to do):
30 Janet's first attempt at rule "Public Speaking" (dictatorship by
"prognosticating")
34 Janet's second attempt
128 Janet's attempts rejected
75 snail's first attempt at "Public Speaking"
195 snail's second attempt
223 snail's second version adopted
51 Ruleset as of 2023-08-25 (132 rules)
138 Ruleset as of 2023-09-05 (129 rules)
230 Registrar report with "Festivity is 5." hidden in it
231 Arbitor report
232 Kate creates and distributes proposal "Restoration of the Monarchy"
(create two rules, give Kate a power 3 dictatorship)
233 Kate votes FOR RotM
234 Janet votes FOR RotM
235 4st votes AGAINST RotM
236 nix registers
237 snail votes AGAINST RotM
238 snail intends to (with notice) exercise eir dictatorship (create one
rule, give snail power to hand out 100-blot fines for voting against eir
wishes)
239 response to a CoE (Daily Dose of Vitamin C's power is 1, not 0.5)
240 snail intends to (with notice) exercise eir dictatorship (create one
rule, give snail power to hand out 100-blot fines for objecting to eir
tabled intents)
241 various crimes dismissed for not being investigated quickly enough
242 Referee report (snail 1, others 0)
243 Janet says that DDoVC's distribution failed, despite 239
244 CoE of stuff meant for Agora
245 kiako votes AGAINST RotM
246 snail exercises eir dictatorship (e succumbs 9 times)
247 snail exercises eir dictatorship (4st and kiako each succumb 9 times)
248 Murphy votes AGAINST RotM
249 Kate initiates elections, becomes candidate
250 Janet becomes candidate
251 4st becomes candidate
252 Kate changes vote on RotM to AGAINST
253 kiako becomes candidate
254 Janet changes vote on RotM to AGAINST
255 snail repeats intent from 238, 104 times
256 snail repeats intent from 240, 104 times
257 snail intends to (without objection) ratify blots: snail kiako 4st
0, others 100
258 Kate CoEs 257
259 Kate points out that CoE is only meaningful for self-ratification,
not for RWO
260 Registrar report
261 kiako CoEs Registrar report
262 kiako CoEs Registrar report
263 snail creates and distributes proposal "The End is Nigh" (alter
rules "Public Speaking" and 105)
264 Janet votes AGAINST TEiN
265 Kate votes AGAINST TEiN
266 Kate creates and distributes proposal "Restoration of the Monarchy
v2" (revert rules with power <= 3 to 2023-10-20, create one rule, give
Kate a power 3 dictatorship)
267 Kate votes FOR RotM v2
268 Janet votes FOR RotM v2
269 Kate reiterates 267 in case of ambiguity
270 snail votes AGAINST RotM v2
BUS: Weekly maintenance (attn Absurdor, Collector, Stonemason)
I push the boulder. I wield the Minty Stone.
Re: BUS: Ah what the hell (Registrar, Dream Keeper) (attn Collector)
R. Lee wrote: I register, claim a welcome package, and dream of Wealth I grant a welcome package to R. Lee.
BUS: It's the thought that counts
I award a Gray Ribbon to LegallyBearded.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9070-9072
I vote as follows (and have updated the spreadsheet): 9070~ Yachay 1.0 Criminalize Egregious Miscommunication present 9071~ snail 2.0 Loud Stone Conditional: if Dream Keeper votes FOR or AGAINST then endorse em, otherwise endorse Stonemason. 9072* snail...[1] 3.0 Vacations v4 FOR
BUS: Weekly maintenance (attn Absurdor, Collector, Stonemason)
I push the boulder. I wield the Minty Stone.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9068-9069
I vote as follows (and have updated the spreadsheet): 9068~ Yachay 1.0 Agora of Empires FOR (without 2 objections is a reasonable guard against trivial wins, other issues can be ironed out later) 9069~ snail 1.0 Coauthored Crystals endorse Geologist
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9062-9067
I vote as follows (and have updated the spreadsheet): 9062~ kiako, ais523 2.0 Insurance Policy PRESENT 9063~ kiako, ais523 2.0 Dreaming of a Return Home PRESENT 9064~ kiako, snail2.0 Carving Canyons endorse Stonemason 9065~ Jimmy 1.0 (none) AGAINST (would arguably block non-player-specific changes to the rules governing Radiance. Distinguishing that from e.g. enacting a rule "One second after this rule is enacted, Jimmy loses 10 Radiance" is non-trivial, and perhaps best left up to the voters to evaluate on a case-by-case basis.) 9066~ 4st 2.0 No Taxation Without Representation AGAINST (if a proposal doesn't represent you, then vote AGAINST it) 9067* snail...[1] 3.0 Vacations v3 FOR
BUS: Various actions (attn Stonemason, Collector, Absurdor)
I wield the Minty Stone. I enter the raffle by paying 1 Murphy stamp to Agora. I push the boulder.
BUS: Here we go again (attn Absurdor)
I push the boulder.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Geologist] shiny stuff
4st wrote: The Geologist isn't real, and there are no crystals. If they do exist, it would look like this: Geologist Weekly: Snail owns Crystal 2463 with size 2. Snail owns Crystal 2659 with size 2. Snail owns Crystal 2451 with size 2. Murphy owns Crystal 2642 with size 2. 4st owns Crystal 2685, with size 1. 4st owns Crystal 1607, with size 3. 4st owns Crystal 106, with size 3. Janet owns Crystal 869, with size 3. Janet owns Crystal 2201, with size 3. Per the 18th February SLR, 133 rules are enacted. Changes: None. This is a Claim of Error, just to ensure that this quasi-report doesn't self-ratify. (I'm pretty sure it wouldn't anyway, because it doesn't purport to be the Geologist's report; instead, it purports that no such office or report exists, then provides explicitly hypothetical data for what it would look like if it did.)
Re: OFF: Re: BUS: (@ADoP) A Complex Petition (attn Rulekeepor)
I wrote: I also intend without objection to clean Rule 2632 by replacing "eir voting strength is increase" with "eir voting strength is increased". Having received no objection, I do so.
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Re: BUS: (@ADoP) A Complex Petition
ais523 wrote: On Sun, 2024-02-18 at 12:23 -0800, Edward Murphy via agora-official wrote: snail wrote: I petition the ADoP to increase the complexity of the office of Collector to 2. It's akin to the previous office of Treasuror. Per Rule 2632 (Complexity), I can't do so unilaterally, but I intend with 2 Agoran consent to increase the complexity of Collector to 2. I support. With support from ais523 and no objectors, I do so.
BUS: *ka-chunk* (attn Stonemason, Collector)
I wield the Minty Stone.
BUS: Srs bsnss (attn Absurdor)
I push the boulder.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9058-9061
I vote as follows (and have updated the spreadsheet): 9058* Aris, G.3.0 Things Mean What They're Meant to Mean FOR 9059~ Maloney 1.0 Ambiguity Amendment AGAINST 9060~ Maloney 1.0 Ambiguity Amendment AGAINST 9061~ snail 2.0 Wake Up Call endorse Dream Keeper
Re: BUS: (@Collector, @Notary) What a nice trade
snail wrote: I transfer 1 Katie stamp to Murphy. I take the promise listed below from the library and cash it. "Renewable Stamps for Stamps" created by Murphy Bearer: the library Text: Cashing conditions: The bearer has granted or transferred to me a Stamp of a type that I didn't already own earlier in the same message as they cash in this promise, and e has not cashed any other promise in between, and I will still own that type immediately after this message, and I have at least one Stamp of type Murphy. I transfer one Stamp of type Murphy to the person specified by the bearer (or to the bearer if no specification is provided, then create a copy of this promise and transfer it to the Library. If this failed to transfer a stamp via promise-cashing, then I transfer 1 Katie stamp to snail. (As of last week's Collector report, I didn't have any Murphy stamps, but I may have gained one since then due to Dream and/or Stone effects.)
BUS: Super-green (attn Stonemason)
I reach for the Minty Stone.
BUS: Hey, how did you know I was hungry? (attn Absurdor)
I push the boulder.
BUS: Economics (attn Dream Keeper)
I envision Wealth as my Dream.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9053-9057
I vote as follows (and have updated the spreadsheet): 9053~ Jimmy 1.0 (none) AGAINST (would criminalize changes to post-win resets) 9054~ 4st, Jimmy 1.0 Agoran Christmas AGAINST (would create unannounced events for the ADoP to track) 9055~ Maloney 1.0 Radiance Day endorse Illuminator (would create an unannounced event for em to track) 9056* nix...[1] 3.0 Vacations AGAINST (superseded by v2) 9057* snail...[2] 3.0 Vacations v2 FOR
BUS: You'd think this would involve the Stonemason somehow (attn Absurdor)
I push the boulder.
BUS: Paint it black (attn Absurdor)
I push the boulder.
BUS: +1 (attn Absurdor)
I push the boulder.
BUS: One more thing (attn Absurdor)
I push the boulder.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9049-9051
I vote as follows (and have updated the spreadsheet): 9049* Janet, Aris, ais523 3.0 Registration restrictions FOR 9050* Janet 3.0 Self-ratification limitations FOR 9051~ snail 2.0 A Mossy Cabinet endorse Stonemason
BUS: Eye of the Tiger (attn Absurdor)
I push the boulder.
BUS: First things first (attn Absurdor)
I push the boulder.
BUS: Here we go again (attn Absurdor)
I push the boulder.
BUS: Rocky upgoer (attn Absurdor)
I push the boulder.
Re: BUS: Shenanigans
4st wrote: I intend to declare apathy, specifying all players. I object to all intents to declare apathy, including that one. As do I.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9046-9048
I vote as follows: 9046~ 4st, ais523, Gaelan 1.0 Crystal fix 1 FOR 9047* 4st, Janet, ais523 3.0 Shameless copy of Adoption AI Security with the right AI FOR 9048* nix, 4st, snail 3.0 It's been 4+ years, Agora. 4+ YEARS. FOR
BUS: Reaching (attn Stonemason)
I reach for the Anti-Equatorial Stone.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Degree Decision - "Snapshots" by snail
4s wrote: I've been asked by the current herald to lead the Agoran Consent process for eir most recent thesis. - I myself deem it worthy of an Associate's of Art of Agora Nomic. - juan has abstained from reviewing (due to personal feelings on academia). - Janet has stated that these message with no definitive context are not degree worthy, and the context given was that there is no definitive context. - nix has asked for further context, and overall seems to vibe similar to Janet on the matter (vibes similar is only my opinion), although snail has provided context. - Aris has stated that e shall recuse emself from reviewing, although e overall expresses confusion and a definitive feeling (e stated this in the Discord fora). - kiako has stated "ah interesting idea" in the same fora. - To my knowledge, no other comments have been made. The thesis in question can be found here: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg45783.html Therefore, I Intend to award the highest degree proposed to snail (as per the unofficial thesis review terms set by nix some time ago), using the following magic Agoran Law words: I intend to, with 2 Agoran Consent, award snail a degree of "Associate of Nomic Art". I support.
BUS: Huff puff (attn Absurdor)
I push the boulder. (Disclaimer: Fails if I already did it this week.)
Re: BUS: (@Illuminator, @Stonemason, @Murphy) Toss
snail wrote: I wield the Hot Potato stone, specifying Murphy. (It is transferred to em, and I gain 8 radiance.) I wield the Hot Potato stone, specifying Liz. (It is transferred to em, and I gain 8 radiance.)
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9040-9045
I vote as follows (but have not updated the spreadsheet, which is still in the process of having these added): 9040~ Janet, ais523 1.0 Adoption AI security FOR 9041* 4st, Murphy 3.0 Repeal 107 AGAINST 9042~ 4st, Murphy 1.0 Repeal 2464 AGAINST 9043~ 4st, Murphy 1.7 Repeal 2676 AGAINST 9044~ 4st, Murphy 2.0 Repeal 2573 AGAINST 9045* 4st, Murphy 3.0 Repeal 879 AGAINST
BUS: Number go up (attn Absurdor)
I push the boulder.
BUS: Scrub scrub (attn Referee)
I expunge one of 4st's blots.
BUS: Do you even lift? (attn Absurdor)
I push the boulder.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 9032-9034
I vote as follows (and have updated the spreadsheet): 9032~ 4st, ...[1] 1.0 Rules as Items v6 FOR 9033* 4st, Janet, nix, snail 3.0 It's been 4 years, Agora. 4 YEARS. endorse Rulekeepor 9034~ snail, nix 1.0 A simple fix FOR
BUS: Proposal: Ratify the Ruleset Week (attn Promotor)
Proposal: Ratify the Ruleset Week Create a rule titled "Ratify the Ruleset Week" with this text: The Agoran week each year containing the Ides of March is Ratify the Ruleset Week. During Ratify the Ruleset Week, the Rulekeepor SHALL submit a proposal to ratify a purported ruleset published since the last time the ruleset was ratified.
BUS: Various actions (attn Dream Keeper, Notary, Promotor)
I envision a dream of Gardens.
I create a promise with this text, titled "Renewable Stamps for Stones"
and transfer it to the Library:
{
Cashing conditions: The bearer has granted or transferred to me a Stamp
of a type that I didn't already own earlier in the same message as they
cash in this promise, and e has not cashed any other promise in between,
and I will still own that type immediately after this message.
I wield a stone as specified by the bearer, then create a copy of this
promise and transfer it to the Library.
}
I submit the following:
Proposal: Uncrossed arms
(AI = 2)
Amend Rule 2642 (Gathering Stones) by replacing this text:
At the beginning of each week, the stone specified by the player
with the highest Modified Rockiness that reached for a stone in
the previous week is transferred to em. In a tie, the stone
specified by the tied player who reached first is transferred to
em. When a player receives a stone in this way, eir Base Rockiness
is set to 0.
with this text:
At the beginning of each week, each stone owned by Agora is
transferred to the player (if any) with the highest Modified
Rockiness that reached for that stone in the previous week,
with ties broken in favor of the tied player who reached for
that stone first. When a player receives a stone in this way,
eir Base Rockiness is set to 0.
Re: BUS: [Herald] Long Service Awards
snail wrote: I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to award juan the patent title "Six Months Long Service". I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to award juan the patent title "Nine Months Long Service". I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to award juan the patent title "Twelve Months Long Service". I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to award snail the patent title "Twelve Months Long Service". For each of these, I support it. * Juan has been Registrar continuously for over a year. * snail has been Notary and Promotor continuously for over a year.
BUS: Re: OFF: Re: agora-official Digest, Vol 120, Issue 11
CFJ: In the message quoted in evidence, Crystalizedmire pushed the boulder. Arguments: Is there enough ambiguity here to render the action ineffective? In the context of Rule 2683 (The Boulder), it's reasonably clear what e intended, but absent that context, the message could also be interpreted as an imperative with unspecified target. According to the Absurdor's reports of 2023-11-13 and 2023-11-06, Crystalizedmire did not push the boulder at any time between those reports, thus e was able to do so per R2683. Evidence: Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2023 09:31:38 -0500 Message-ID: To: agora-offic...@agoranomic.org From: Fredrica Turner via agora-official Push the boulder
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9027-9030
I vote as follows (and have updated the spreadsheet): 9027* Kate, snail 3.0 De-Escalating the Hole FOR 9028~ Janet 2.0 Fairness in Crime Act endorse Referee 9029~ snail, Zipzap 2.0 Sharing takes Care endorse Dream Keeper 9030~ 4st 1.0 (n/a) AGAINST (missing "Create a rule with this text")
Re: BUS: (@Tailor) festivity paranoia
Janet wrote: On 11/17/23 12:52, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote: On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 6:03 AM 4st nomic via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: If Agora's festivity has been greater than 0 for 14 days or more, I flip it to 0 by announcement. For good measure, I CoE all reports that claim the festivity is non-zero. Oh, also: this may create an obligation for anyone who has ever published a Festivity report listing it as non-zero to respond. That's probably a bug. For each of these CoEs regarding a report published by me, I respond by denying it on the grounds that (to the best of my knowledge) the festivity was legitimately non-zero at those times.
Re: BUS: [Prime Minister] State-sanctioned celebrations (for real)
Janet wrote:
[Oops we forgot to get Royal Assent last time.]
I issue a Cabinet Order of Manifesto, distributing the proposal in the
Proposal Pool with title "Celebration!" that I most recently submitted,
removing it from the Proposal Pool and initiating a referendum on it.
For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the quorum is 3,
the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid options are FOR and
AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are conditional votes).
For this proposal, the class is Democratic. Other attributes of the
proposal are as follows:
Title: Celebration!
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
Adoption index: 3.0
{
Enact a new Rule with power 3, title "Dictatorship", and text as follows:
{
Janet, acting as emself, CAN proclaim by announcement, specifying a
published document as being the Decree. When e does so, the Decree's
power is set to the power of this rule, then it takes effect, then its
power is set to 0.
When a Decree takes effect, the Decree applies the changes
that it specifies in its text, except as prohibited by other
rules. Unless otherwise specified by the text, the effects are
applied in the order they appear in the text. Clearly marked
comments are ignored. If the Decree cannot make some changes it
specifies, that does not preclude the other changes from taking
place.
A document CANNOT become a Decree except as specified in this Rule. A
Decree CANNOT take effect except as specified in this Rule.
}
}
I vote AGAINST.
BUS: The terrible secret of space (attn Absurdor)
I shove the boulder.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9020-9026
I vote as follows (and have updated the spreadsheet): 9020~ 4st, ...[1] 1.0 Free Black Ribbons AGAINST 9021~ 4st, ...[1] 1.0 Free Points AGAINST 9022~ 4st, ...[1] 1.0 Free Pebbles AGAINST 9023~ 4st, ...[1] 1.0 Free Stamps AGAINST 9024~ Janet 1.7 Investigation time limits FOR 9025~ Yachay 2.0 Stone Repeal FOR 9026~ Janet, Kate 1.5 It's a bit dark in here endorse Herald
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9011-9019
I vote as follows (and have updated the spreadsheet): 9011~ Zipzap 2.0 Sharing Dreams in the Modern Era FOR 9012~ Janet 2.0 Official security FOR 9013~ 4st 1.0 Cool numbers PRESENT 9014~ kiako, Janet1.0 Back from Extinction FOR 9015~ kiako 1.0 Beaming Towards Victory FOR 9016~ kiako, Janet1.0 Alluring Gambits FOR 9017~ kiako, Murphy 1.0 Over 9000 Lumens! FOR 9018~ kiako 1.0 Rocky Refraction AGAINST (insufficient AI to amend this rule, would vote FOR otherwise) 9019* Janet, nix, Kate3.0 Forum restoration FOR
BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4052 Assigned to Murphy
4st wrote: I temporarily deputise as Arbitor to assign the following CFJ. The below is CFJ 4052. I assign it to Murphy. === CFJ 4052 === ais523 has 33 ais523 stamps. == Caller:4ˢᵗ Judge: Murphy == History: Called by 4ˢᵗ: 09 Oct 2023 12:04:27 -0700 Assigned to Murphy:[now] == Caller's Evidence: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg45421.html Arguments FOR: That's what the Minty Stone's description says. Arguments AGAINST: The description of a stone does not necessarily define the effects of a stone when it is thereby wielded. See the mismatch between the wording of rule 2640 and 2641, whereby "description" does not necessarily align with "any effects that it defines as occurring when the stone is wielded." Is it necessarily true that description of a stone is to be interpreted when determining that it has any effects? Rule 2640/4 (Power=2) Stones A stone is a unique indestructible liquid asset defined by the rules. To define a stone, the definition must include: (i) A name unique among stones; (ii) The smoothness of the stone, which is a non-negative integer; (iii) A description of the stone's properties (iv) Optionally, a frequency, which must be one of daily, weekly, monthly, or quarterly. Ownership of stones is entirely restricted to Agora and active players. If a stone is owned by the Lost and Found Department or in abeyance, it is immediately transferred to Agora. The Stonemason is an office, and the recordkeepor of stones. Mossiness is a Stone switch with values of non-negative integers and a default of 0 tracked by the Stonemason. When a stone is transferred from Agora to a player or from a player to Agora, its Mossiness is set to 0. The mossiest stone(s) in a set of stone is (are) the stone(s) with the highest Mossiness value. The Slipperiness of a stone is that stone's smoothness plus its mossiness. Rule 2641/2 (Power=2) Wielding Stones Except as otherwise specified by the rules, the owner of a stone CAN wield it by announcement specifying any values needed to interpret the stone's effects. A stone with a frequency that has been wielded in the corresponding Agoran time interval is Hot for the remainder of the time period (e.g. if the frequency is daily, it is hot for the remainder of the Agoran day it was wielded during). While a stone is hot, it is IMPOSSIBLE to wield it or to transfer it by announcement When a stone is wielded, the Rule defining that stone applies any effects that it defines as occurring when the stone is wielded. The wielding of stones is secured. I find that describing stones' descriptions as "a description of the stone's properties" (R2640) is sufficient to make descriptions to the effect of "When wielded, X happens" effective. R2640 does not explicitly state that descriptions are "just flavor text" or the like, nor does it explicitly require "effect when wielded" to be labeled differently. Timeline of relevant events: * Oct 6 - Collector's report says ais523 owns 32 ais523 stamps * Oct 7 - Stonemason's report says ais523 owns Minty Stone * Oct 8 - ais523 wields Minty Stone, specifying emself * Oct 9 - this CFJ is called To the best of my knowledge, these reports were correct in these details, the wielding caused ais523 to gain an ais523 stamp, and a scan of other public messages during this time turns up nothing else that would alter ais523's Stone or stamp holdings. Accordingly, I judge TRUE. Judge's evidence: Collector's report https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg13528.html Stonemason's report https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg13537.html ais523 wields Minty Stone https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg45412.html
Re: BUS: FREE HORSES!!!!! Incredible Discovery!!!!!! 1000000 Points for Joning today!!!!! Gauraneteed horses!!!!!! BIGGER HORSES!!!!!!
4st wrote: I intend to declare apathy by announcement, specifying myself. I object. (And if it did get marked as spam, then that would be a good argument for "ineffective because intent was obfuscated".)
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9009-9010
I vote as follows (and have updated the spreadsheet): 9009* Janet 3.0 Ordered cleanliness FOR 9010~ 4st 2.0 Wizards Wage War AGAINST per author
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9005-9008
I vote as follows (and have updated the spreadsheet): 9005~ Janet2.0 Unreality stone endorse Stonemason 9006~ Janet1.0 Freeing Sisyphus endorse Absurdor 9007~ Janet1.0 Shining a flashlight FOR 9008~ snail1.0 Always at risk endorse Absurdor
BUS: Contestn't
I become a participant of The Birthday Tournament.
BUS: Scything
For each of these contracts, I intend, without two objections, to shred it: * "snail's rice consent" * "Beokirby's rice consent" * "Lazy rice planning" * "Juan's feeble attempt at paradox" (Now that Rice has been repealed, I don't think any of these does anything meaningful any more.)
BUS: Totally on-time vote
I vote [Janet] for Rulekeepor.
BUS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJs 4045-4048 Assigned to Murphy
G. wrote:
Below are CFJs 4045, 4046, 4047, and 4048. I assign each one to Murphy.
=== CFJ 4045 ===
Juan, the Absurdor, violated rule 2683.
=== CFJ 4046 ===
4st violated rule 2683.
=== CFJ 4047 ===
Every player violated rule 2683.
=== CFJ 4048 ===
The ruleset violated 2683.
==
Caller:4st
Judge: Murphy
==
History:
Called by 4st:08 Jul 2023 02:27:21
Assigned to Murphy: [now]
==
Caller's Evidence:
Rule 2683 was violated, as the last time the boulder was pushed was June
23rd by 4st.
Rule 2683/0 (Power=0.5)
The Boulder
The Absurdor is an office.
The Boulder's Height is a singleton integer switch defaulting to
0, tracked by the Absurdor.
Each player CAN, once a week, by announcement, push the boulder.
When a player pushes the Boulder, its Height is increased by 1.
Players are ENCOURAGED to do so. The Boulder MUST be pushed at
least once a week.
If at any point the height of the Boulder is 100 or more, it is
set to 0.
Caller's Arguments:
Arguments JUAN: Juan, the Absurdor, has an implied responsibility to push
the boulder, as e has the office responsible for tracking it, and has the
power to push the boulder on any given week.
Arguments 4ST: 4st, as the last and only pusher of the boulder, should have
continued to push the boulder, as by volunteering the first time, has an
implied responsibility to continue to do it.
Arguments EVERYONE: As anyone CAN push the boulder, it is everyone's
implied responsibility, and so, everyone violated rule 2683, because
everyone has the responsibility to push the boulder.
Arguments RULESET: Alternatively, since there is no one assigned to the
responsibility specifically, the ruleset violated the rule, and thus, the
infraction has no infracter. (I believe this is the precedent, but it
doesn't hurt to check)
--
Gratuitous Arguments by Janet:
Arguments for JUAN, 4ST, EVERYONE:
CFJ 3730 clearly suggests a judgement of FALSE.
Arguments for RULESET:
IRRELEVANT. No punishment can be imposed in any case.
--
Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:
I believe in this case it is the boulder that has violated
the rules, by not being pushed. (As far as I can tell, this viewpoint
is not inconsistent with CFJ 3730.) In CFJ 3141, the judge found that a
sentence fragment "judges SHALL NOT be assigned to any judicial case"
meant that the judge would have violated a rule by being assigned (as
opposed to the person doing the assignment). This situation has
comparable wording.
Anyway, CFJ 3730 is a direct enough precedent that I think the first
three CFJs could appropriately be judged IRRELEVANT, on the basis that
they can be trivially determined from the outcome of another judicial
case; there doesn't seem to be anything different this time compared to
last time we tried this (something which IIRC was pointed out during
the voting period).
--
Gratuitous Arguments by G.:
(specific response to ais523's gratuitous arguments):
Even if the judge agrees with the principles and logic of CFJ 3730,
there's some rule text changes to consider. The judgement quotes a
clause of Rule 2531/4 in effect at the time of that judgement:
Any attempt to levy a fine is INEFFECTIVE if:
(reasons)
That text has been replaced with this in R2531/16:
An infraction is automatically forgiven if:
(reasons)
The "reasons" in R2531/4 mixed the concepts of "not a rules violation
based on facts" and "technically a rules violation but excused from
penalties" so it was the appropriate citation at the time; currently,
"not a rules violation based on facts" is a platonic effect of Rule
2478 and R2531/16 is only relevant for forgiving an established rules
violation. If the judge agrees with the overall logic of CFJ 3730, I
think this is a minor rules citation issue, but it's probably
different enough to reaffirm FALSE and cite R2478 as the new governing
rule, or do a little due diligence on whether the new rules text
functions as expected, rather than dismiss this as wholly irrelevant.
The form of the passive-voice MUST in this case ("The Boulder MUST be
pushed at least once a week") is the same as in CFJ 3730 ("The Ritual
MUST be
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9003-9004
I vote as follows (and have updated the spreadsheet): 9003* Janet, G.3.0 Process Protection FOR 9004~ 4st, Janet, Murphy 1.0 Additional Containment Procedure!!! endorse Rulekeepor
BUS: I like colors (attn Buttonmastor)
I press the button. To the best of my knowledge, the button was last pressed on or about Fri, 07 Jul 2023 16:10:25 -0300, thus this should flip my Buttonclass to Yellow.
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport
Janet wrote: On 7/2/23 16:47, Edward Murphy via agora-official wrote: Office Holder[1]Since Last Election Complexity Absurdor juan 2023-06-19(never) 1 ADoP ~ Murphy 2020-07-03(ongoing) 1 Arbitor G. 2022-10-092023-01-152 Assessor Janet2019-07-092023-05-073 Buttonmastor juan 2023-06-19(never) 1 Collector *snail2023-04-25(never) 1 Distributor omd 2018-06-15(never)[3]0 Dream Keeper snail2022-12-11(never) 1 Herald *4st 2023-05-252023-05-072 Notary snail2022-03-142023-01-152 Prime Minister ~*4st 2023-06-23(ongoing) 0 Promotor snail2022-05-012023-01-153 Referee *(vacant) 2023-06-13[2] (ongoing) 2 Registrar ~ juan 2022-08-29(ongoing) 1 Rulekeepor ~ Janet2019-12-06(ongoing) 3 Speaker G. 2023-06-232019-11-05 [3]0 Stonemason Janet2020-11-11(never) 1 Tailor ~ Murphy 2021-02-28(ongoing) 1 Webmastor *(vacant) 2023-06-13[2] 2023-06-251 CoE: The complexity of Absurdor is 0, having been set in P8992. Admitted, corrected in database and next report.
BUS: Votes
I vote as follows: Prime Minister - [Janet, 4st, snail, ais523] Referee - [ais523, juan]
BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] High Scores
4st wrote: Radiances: Snail: 45 Murphy: 43 4st, Aspen, G., Janet, Murphy, Yachay Wayllukuq, ais523, beokirby, blob, cuddlybanana, inalienableWright, juan, Anneke-Constantine: 29 all others: 0 changes: dream of sharing for murphy ((14/2) /1) = 7 minty stone wield of snail = 3 Claim of error: I'm listed twice, so at least one of those is incorrect.
BUS: It's that time again
Happy birthday, Agora!
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposition 9002
I vote as follows (and have updated the spreadsheet): 9002~ Janet 2.0 Active rocks FOR
BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4038 Assigned to Murphy
G. wrote: I assign CFJ 4038 (below) to Murphy. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4038 === CFJ 4038 === The above-quoted Registrar's report contains a statement that the person that, as of 2023-01-01, would have been known as Blob is a player. == Caller:Janet Judge: Murphy == History: Called by Janet: 30 May 2023 21:27:23 Assigned to nix: 04 Jun 2023 13:29:00 nix recused: 06 Jun 2023 23:36:56 Assigned to Murphy: [now] == Caller's Evidence: On 5/22/23 15:07, juan via agora-official wrote: PLAYERS Active players: 14/21 a Player Registered Last change Contact - -- -- --- --- + 4st 2023-01-27 " notorious4st at gmail dot com + Aspen2022-11-04 " thoughtsoflifeandlight17 at gmail dot com + G. 2017-08-25 2021-02-03 kerim at uw dot edu + Janet2019-06-02 2021-02-03 agora at randomcat dot org + Murphy 2017-12-17 2021-02-03 murphy.agora at gmail dot com + Yachay Wayllukuq 2023-03-16 " yachaywayllukuq at gmail.com + ais523 2021-06-08 " callforjudgement at yahoo.co dot uk + beokirby 2023-05-18 " beokirbyagora at gmail dot com + blob 2023-05-18 " cearguizoni1 at gmail dot com + cuddlybanana 2021-03-16 2023-01-16 rose.strong42 at gmail dot com + inalienableWright2023-05-16 " inalienablewright at mailfence dot com + juan 2022-03-14 " juan at juanmeleiro.mat dot br + nix 2022-10-09 " agora at nullarch dot com + snail2022-01-29 " secretsnail9 at gmail dot com - Aced72022-10-19 2023-04-03 cadenomic at gmail dot com - Gaelan 2017-05-15 2023-04-03 gbs at canishe dot com - Marb 2022-11-27 2023-04-03 marb at shabu dot town - R. Lee 2023-01-31 2023-04-03 sarahestrange0 at gmail dot com - Shy Owl 2022-10-07 2023-04-03 iamashyown at proton dot me - omd 2011-02-03 2022-03-23 comexk at gmail dot com - tb1482023-02-06 2023-04-03 tb148 at proton dot me -- Gratuitous Arguments by G.: The Registrar's Report in question lists an email address for the person 'blob'. This email address does not match the email address associated with Blob in previous Registrar's Monthly Reports (around Jan 1 2023). Furthermore, the currently-registered blob, around the time of eir registration, had this (summarized) conversation in Discord: snail 05/16/2023 8:00 PM welcome! How did you find us? Murphy 05/16/2023 11:40 PM Are you a mauve-colored blob, specifically? blob (@snail) 05/17/2023 4:38 PM just found out about nomics somehow (through a "related articles" wikipedia thing i believe) and thought that this looked pretty cool blob (@Murphy) 05/17/2023 4:38 PM not specifically, no G. 05/17/2023 4:39 PM welcome! Murphy's message on mauve is because we had someone nicknamed Blob many years ago, and that was an in-joke with them. blob 05/17/2023 4:39 PM ah, i see! i had to check my bio for a moment there, because muave is my favorite color, and i thought it might be there xD I think that conversation establishes, to the preponderance of evidence, that the currently-registered blob is new to nomic, and unaware of various in-jokes concerning the original Blob. So I think this should be FALSE; though in particular, the disambiguation relies on the Registrar's Report including the email address as an annotation, so this CFJ doesn't really address who 'blob' refers to if the name is used in other reports without the additional annotation. I accept the caller's arguments on all points and judge FALSE.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8990-9001
I vote as follows (and have updated the spreadsheet): 8990~ Janet, nix 2.0 Self-referential stone fixes endorse Stonemason 8991~ Janet 2.0 Reach clarification endorse Stonemason 8992~ juan1.0 Camusian Dream v2 FOR 8993~ G. 1.0 rice knowing you endorse Ricemastor 8994~ juan1.0 Not Game Theory FOR 8995~ Murphy, snail 2.0 Broad Recursion FOR 8996~ Murphy 2.0 Narrow Recursion FOR 8997~ Janet, Murphy 1.0 Stamp fungibility FOR 8998* Janet 3.0 Stamp fungibility correction FOR 8999* Yachay 3.0 Go Home, You're Drunk AGAINST 9000~ snail, Janet... [1] 1.5 Brights FOR 9001~ snail 2.0 More Bright Abilities FOR
BUS: You asked for it, you got it
I award a Gray Ribbon to Juan.
BUS: Recursion polish (attn Promotor)
I submit the following proposals. Proposal: Broad Recursion (AI = 2, co-author = snail) Amend Rule 2645 (The Stones) by replacing the definition of the Recursion Stone with: - Recursion Stone (Monthly, 4): The Recursion Stone can be wielded once per month as if it had the power of any other stone of your choice (the Blueprint Stone), with any references to the Blueprint Stone itself changed to the Recursion Stone unless they specify otherwise. Proposal: Narrow Recursion (AI = 2) If the proposal "Broad Recursion" (submitted in the same message as this one) has been adopted or has sufficient voter support to be adopted, then this proposal has no effect. Otherwise, amend Rule 2645 (The Stones) by replacing the definition of the Recursion Stone with: - Recursion Stone (Monthly, 4): The Recursion Stone can be wielded once per month as if it had the power of any other stone of your choice (the Blueprint Stone), with any references to the Blueprint Stone itself left unchanged unless they specify otherwise.
