Re: BUS: registration
> On Apr 10, 2024, at 9:33 AM, Matt Smyth via agora-business > wrote: > > Hello to everyone playing. I am registering for Agora under the playername > 'Juniper’. Welcome, Juniper! I cause Juniper to receive a welcome package. If you have any questions as you get your bearings, please don’t hesitate to ask either here or in the chat rooms - folks are more than happy to help. Gaelan
Re: BUS: (@Prime Minister) An economic petition
> On Apr 7, 2024, at 2:05 PM, ais523 via agora-business > wrote: > > I petition the Prime Minister to enact an Emergency Regulation that > gives everyone a suitable number of spendies with which to initialise > the economy. > > (At present, we have a new economy, but no spendies to spend, because > they are only awarded at the start of each month, and the proposal > introducing spendies didn't create any.) > > -- > ais523 And I petition the Speaker to do the same. (R2614/9 allows the Speaker to act as PM for these purposes if the PM hasn’t sent a message for four days.) Gaelan
Re: BUS: Announcement of Dictatorship
I note that, in the quoted message, Yachay has violated R2471 by making a false statement (“I have taken complete control of Agora”) with intent to mislead. Gaelan > On Apr 1, 2024, at 6:22 PM, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business > wrote: > > Quite a lot has happened in the last couple of hours. I have taken complete > control of Agora. > > Full explanation here: ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGxIE1hr0w4 )
Re: DIS: @Gaelan Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 4056 Recused from @Gaelan and assigned to @Janet
> On Apr 1, 2024, at 4:56 PM, nix via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On 4/1/24 10:48, nix via agora-business wrote: >> On 3/16/24 12:38, nix via agora-business wrote: >>> On 3/12/24 05:02, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: I recuse myself from CFJ 4056. Besides that Agoran't's gameplay was immensely complex, I was a participant in it, there is a conflict of interest I'd rather avoid for now. >>> >>> Thanks for the timely recusal. I assign CFJ 4056 to Gaelan. >>> >> >> I recuse Galaen from CFJ 4056 for violating the judgment time limit. I >> assign CFJ 4056 to Janet. >> > > Gaelan, please note that I removed you from the judge pool as per my > policy. Let me know if you'd like me to add you back. > > -- > nix > Arbitor I become an eligible judge (to BUS, just in case). nix, please don’t assign me anything before this Thursday, when I should be under significantly less time pressure. Gaelan
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9073-9086
I vote as follows: > On Mar 25, 2024, at 10:49 PM, secretsnail9 via agora-official > wrote: > > ID Author(s) AITitle > --- > 9073~ Kate, Gaelan1.0 In case of unexpected nonplayerhood ENDORSE Kate > 9074* Janet 3.0 Close enough PRESENT: I don’t love defining the revision number as a "approximation of the number of changes made to the rule”, as I think it misstates the purpose of a revision number (which, IMO, is an identifier for a revision). This probably isn’t a problem in practice, as it gives the Rulekeepor sufficient discretion to handle it properly? > 9075* nix, Janet, kiako 3.0 No Hidden Ownership Restrictions ENDORSE nix > 9076* nix 3.0 FUNgibility ENDORSE nix > 9077~ snail 1.0 Less Fragile Crystals ENDORSE snail > 9078~ Janet 1.0 Empire fixes ENDORSE Janet > 9079~ nix, Janet, kiako 2.0 Spendies v1.1 I’m a little sad to see dreams go, but this looks fun too. ENDORSE the Dreamkeepor, unless nix votes AGAINST, then AGAINST > 9080~ Gaelan, Kate1.0 One from the archives FOR > 9081~ Gaelan 2.0 Don't humiliate the recently departed FOR > 9082~ Gaelan 1.7 yes, yes, I got the memo PRESENT (the wording *is* awkward) > 9083* Janet 3.0 SLR ratification 2023-12-31 ENDORSE Janet > 9084~ kiako 2.0 Oneironauts in the Ocean FOR (looks fun, does nothing if 9079 passes) > 9085~ ais523 1.0 Fix truthfulness loophole ENDORSE ais523 > 9086~ R. Lee 1.0 Trimming the most useless rule in the > ruleset CONDITIONAL: FOR if the boulder is at 0 or 1, else AGAINST Gaelan
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9073-9086
COE, I intended to submit a proposal here:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2024-March/052747.html
That wording was probably ill-advised, and I’m happy to re-submit it
properly (especially as I got some good revisions afterwards), but
we should at least confirm whether or not it exists.
Gaelan
> On Mar 25, 2024, at 10:49 PM, secretsnail9 via agora-official
> wrote:
>
> PROMOTOR'S REPORT AS OF RIGHT NOW
>
> If you vote on a proposal, please edit this spreadsheet with your votes:
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1F39OHtBlZlQ8XVccqKCFtP-DPuHz4wPnujxbxkCN3LI/edit?usp=sharing
>
> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating a referendum on it,
> and removing it from the proposal pool. For each decision, the vote
> collector is the Assessor, the quorum is 5, the voting method is
> AI-majority, the adoption index is the adoption index of the associated
> proposal, and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a
> valid vote, as are conditional votes).
>
>
> ID Author(s) AITitle
> ---
> 9073~ Kate, Gaelan1.0 In case of unexpected nonplayerhood
> 9074* Janet 3.0 Close enough
> 9075* nix, Janet, kiako 3.0 No Hidden Ownership Restrictions
> 9076* nix 3.0 FUNgibility
> 9077~ snail 1.0 Less Fragile Crystals
> 9078~ Janet 1.0 Empire fixes
> 9079~ nix, Janet, kiako 2.0 Spendies v1.1
> 9080~ Gaelan, Kate1.0 One from the archives
> 9081~ Gaelan 2.0 Don't humiliate the recently departed
> 9082~ Gaelan 1.7 yes, yes, I got the memo
> 9083* Janet 3.0 SLR ratification 2023-12-31
> 9084~ kiako 2.0 Oneironauts in the Ocean
> 9085~ ais523 1.0 Fix truthfulness loophole
> 9086~ R. Lee 1.0 Trimming the most useless rule in the
> ruleset
>
>
>
> [1]
>
>
> The proposal pool contains the following proposals:
>
> ID Author(s) AITitle
> ---
>
>
>
>
> Legend: * : Democratic proposal.
>~ : Ordinary proposal.
>
> The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. Where
> the information shown below differs from the information shown above,
> the information shown above shall control.
>
>
> //
> ID: 9073
> Title: In case of unexpected nonplayerhood
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: Kate
> Co-authors: Gaelan
>
> In Rule 2492 (Recusal),
>
> s/deregistered/unregistered
>
> [Allows a judge to be removed if, through some mishap, the CFJ has
> been assigned to someone who has never been a player or who ceased to
> be a player through some means other than deregistration. Composition
> fully intended to annoy Janet, but I think completely effective under
> the new standard of "clear to a reasonable player".]
>
> //
> ID: 9074
> Title: Close enough
> Adoption Index: 3.0
> Author: Janet
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend Rule 105 by deleting the text " and the next change identifier".
>
> [Remove the reference to "change identifiers" (presumably just revision
> numbers) for reenactment.]
>
>
> Amend Rule 1681 by, as a single amendment, deleting the text ", revision
> number, " and inserting the following paragraph after the paragraph
> beginning "The listing of each rule in the SLR":
>
> {
>
> The listing of each rule in the SLR must additionally include a
> reasonably accurate approximation of the number of changes made to the
> rule (the rule's revision number). The Rulekeepor may exercise
> reasonable discretion in calculating revision numbers.
>
> }
>
> [Define what a rule's "revision number" is and explicitly grant the
> Rulekeepor discretion in calculating it (e.g. not counting certain
> amendments (back when we used Suber-style proposals that re-numbered
> rules) or skipping revision numbers (for historical reasons).]
>
> //
> ID: 9075
> Title: No Hidden Ownership Restrictions
> Adoption Index: 3.0
> Author: nix
> Co-authors: Janet, kiako
>
> [Right now, sentences like "Blank are an asset ownable by..." is
> interpreted to adding to a default within R2576. This seems unintuitive.
> This proposal makes that default only apply if there's no mention of
> ownership.]
>
> Amend R2576 (Ownership) by replacing:
>
>If ownership of an asset is restricted to a class of entities, then
>that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an entity outside
>that class. By default, ownership of an asset is restricted to
>Agora, players, and contracts, but an asset's backing
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [@Notary] Rent-Seeking Street Food Vendor
> On Mar 25, 2024, at 9:32 PM, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 4:33 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-business <
> agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> I grant the following promise to the Library: {
>> Conditions: the bearer has transferred me, in the same message, 7 radiance.
>>
>> I wield the Hot Potato Stone, specifying the bearer.
>> }
>>
>> Gaelan
>>
>
> I don't think this promise is cashable, since radiance cant be transferred
> (it's a switch).
> --
> snail
So it is; thanks for the heads up.
I revoke that promise.
I grant the following promise to the Library: {
Conditions: the bearer has transferred me, in the same message, either
four stamps of the same type or three stamps of different types.
I wield the Hot Potato Stone, specifying the bearer.
}
Gaelan
BUS: Proposal: yes, yes, I got the memo
I create the following proposal:
---
Title: yes, yes, I got the memo
Author: Gaelan
AI: 1.7
Amend rule 2478 (“Justice”) by replacing: {
A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction
committed by any other player in the last 14 days, specifying the
incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if
it has one).
} with {
A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction
committed by any other player in the last 14 days, specifying the
incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if
it has one); but a player CANNOT note an infraction that has
already been investigated.
}
[Currently, if an infraction is noted after it is investigated,
the Investigator SHALL but CANNOT investigate it. This would be
automatically forgiven by 2531, so it’s not an issue in practice,
but let’s fix it properly.]
---
Gaelan
BUS: Proposal: Don't humiliate the recently departed
I create the following proposal: {
Title: Don't humiliate the recently departed
AI: 2
Amend rule 2168 ("Extending the Voting Period”) by replacing "despite being
eligible” with "despite being eligible players”.
}
Gaelan
Re: BUS: Proposal: one from the archives
I withdraw the quoted proposal and create an identical one, but
with Kate as a co-author.
Gaelan
> On Mar 24, 2024, at 9:16 AM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business
> wrote:
>
> I create the following proposal:
>
> {{{
> Title: One from the archives
> Author: Gaelan
> AI: 1
>
> Re-enact rule 417, with the following text: {
> The Archivist is an office; its holder is responsible for ensuring
> the continued availability of documents of historical interest.
>
> The archivist’s monthly report contains:
> * Instructions for accessing collections of:
>* Texts of each historic rule revision.
>* Texts of each proposal.
>* Judicial cases.
>* Public messages.
>* Messages to discussion fora.
>* Theses for which a person was awarded a degree.
>* Optionally, any other documents the Archivist deems worthy
> of archival.
> * A description of the completeness of each of the above
>collections.
>
> The referenced collections NEED NOT be perfectly complete or
> accurate, but the Archivist SHOULD work towards improving
> their completeness and accuracy.
> }
>
> Re-title rule 417 to “The Archivist”.
>
> Amend Rule 2581 by appending the following item to the list: {
> - Archaeologist, awardable by the Archivist to any player who
> makes a significant contribution to filling in missing
> historical records.
> }
>
> Make Gaelan the Archivist.
>
> [History for the Rulekeepor’s benefit, copied from Zefram’s rule
> archive:
> ??? by Proposal 417 [presumably enacted - Gaelan]
> Amended(1) by Proposal 1302, 4 November 1994
> Amended(2) by Proposal 1700, 1 September 1995
> Amended(3) by Proposal 1735, 15 October 1995
> Amended(4) by Proposal 1741, 15 October 1995
> Amended(5) by Proposal 2029, 28 November 1995
> Infected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, 23 January 1996
> Amended(7) by Proposal 2662, 12 September 1996
> Amended(8) by Proposal 2696, 10 October 1996
> Null-Amended(9) by Proposal 2710, 12 October 1996
> Repealed as Power=1 Rule 417 by Proposal 3787 (Steve), 8 September 1998
> ]
>
> [This is intentionally written loosely to allow the Archivist to
> defer to existing archives - for example that maintained by the
> CotC - where appropriate.]
> }}}
BUS: Proposal: one from the archives
I create the following proposal:
{{{
Title: One from the archives
Author: Gaelan
AI: 1
Re-enact rule 417, with the following text: {
The Archivist is an office; its holder is responsible for ensuring
the continued availability of documents of historical interest.
The archivist’s monthly report contains:
* Instructions for accessing collections of:
* Texts of each historic rule revision.
* Texts of each proposal.
* Judicial cases.
* Public messages.
* Messages to discussion fora.
* Theses for which a person was awarded a degree.
* Optionally, any other documents the Archivist deems worthy
of archival.
* A description of the completeness of each of the above
collections.
The referenced collections NEED NOT be perfectly complete or
accurate, but the Archivist SHOULD work towards improving
their completeness and accuracy.
}
Re-title rule 417 to “The Archivist”.
Amend Rule 2581 by appending the following item to the list: {
- Archaeologist, awardable by the Archivist to any player who
makes a significant contribution to filling in missing
historical records.
}
Make Gaelan the Archivist.
[History for the Rulekeepor’s benefit, copied from Zefram’s rule
archive:
??? by Proposal 417 [presumably enacted - Gaelan]
Amended(1) by Proposal 1302, 4 November 1994
Amended(2) by Proposal 1700, 1 September 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 1735, 15 October 1995
Amended(4) by Proposal 1741, 15 October 1995
Amended(5) by Proposal 2029, 28 November 1995
Infected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, 23 January 1996
Amended(7) by Proposal 2662, 12 September 1996
Amended(8) by Proposal 2696, 10 October 1996
Null-Amended(9) by Proposal 2710, 12 October 1996
Repealed as Power=1 Rule 417 by Proposal 3787 (Steve), 8 September 1998
]
[This is intentionally written loosely to allow the Archivist to
defer to existing archives - for example that maintained by the
CotC - where appropriate.]
}}}
BUS: Typo In The The Rules
I intend, without objection, to clean Rule 2152 ("Mother, May I?”) by replacing
“be be” with “be”.
Gaelan
BUS: [@Notary] Rent-Seeking Street Food Vendor
I grant the following promise to the Library: {
Conditions: the bearer has transferred me, in the same message, 7 radiance.
I wield the Hot Potato Stone, specifying the bearer.
}
Gaelan
BUS: Proto: officially official
Having received no objections, I do so.
Gaelan
> On Mar 18, 2024, at 2:28 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> I proto-submit the following proposal: {
> Title: Officially Official (and Backuply Backup)
> Authors: Gaelan
> AI: 1
>
> Create a power-1 rule titled “Forum Purposes”, with the following
> text: {
>Purpose is a public forum switch, with values Business (default),
>Official, and Backup.
>
>Players SHOULD send public messages to a Business forum unless
>otherwise specified.
>
>Players SHOULD send public messages to an Official forum where they
>relate to the duties of an office.
>
>Players SHOULD send public messages to a Backup forum when
>technical issues prevent the usage of other fora.
>
>The Registrar CAN flip the purpose of a public forum without
>objection.
> }
>
> Flip the purpose of agora-business at agoranomic.org to Business.
> Flip the purpose of agora-official at agoranomic.org to Official.
> Flip the purpose of agoranomic at groups.io to Backup.
>
> [It seems like a good idea to have these standards written down
> somewhere instead of keeping them as unwritten tradition only.
>
> A separate switch, instead of more values for Publicity,
> primarily to avoid introducing complexity to a key system.]
> }
>
> Gaelan
BUS: [@Stonemason] touching me, touching you
I reach for the Hot Potato stone. Gaelan
BUS: CFJ 4062 judged TRUE
> On Mar 12, 2024, at 2:39 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>
>
>> On Mar 9, 2024, at 6:37 PM, nix via agora-business
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 1/28/24 00:59, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>>> I CFJ: "Proposal 9051, as part of its effect, applied a rule change."
>>>
>>
>> I number this CFJ 4062. I assign CFJ 4062 to Gaelan.
>
> This is a draft judgement, as I haven’t done this in a while and would
> like assurance I’m not utterly off-base.
>
> I find TRUE.
Most actions in Agora are done by sending a message meeting criteria,
for example the famous requirement to “set[] forth intent ... clearly
and unambiguously” to perform an action by announcement. If this were
an action by announcement, my task would be to find the criteria, and
determine if the message in question met them.
But proposals do not take actions by announcement. Instead, rule 106/46
reads: {
When a proposal takes effect, the proposal applies the changes that
it specifies in its text, except as prohibited by other rules.
}
So if a proposal says something happens, the presumption is that *it
happens.* The only reason it wouldn’t is if a rule explicitly prevents
it from doing so. So, what could prevent this?
The only thing I see that comes close is this paragraph of 105/24: {
Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that
change to be void and without effect. [...] Furthermore, if the
change being specified would be clear to any reasonable player, the
specification is not ambiguous, even if it is incorrect or unclear
on its face.
}
I don’t think the change is ambiguous in the ordinary sense of the
term: I don’t think there’s any plausible interpretation other than
appending the text at the end of the bulleted list.
Even if the specification isn’t strictly correct in a pedantic
sense, I don’t think that’s the same thing as “ambiguous”;
therefore, as nothing prevents the change from taking place, it
does.
Furthermore, I think there’s a strong argument that the text does
make literal sense. There’s no rule in English that a verb’s arguments
must make sense in the world “before” the verb - for example, it’s
perfectly sensible to say “Agora will gain a player next month”, even
though “player” refers to a person who is not a player now, and indeed
will not be a player until the moment of the gaining. The text of the
proposal is similar: it’s not abstractly referring to Growth as a
Cabinet Order, but describing an act (of appending) by which the text
will become a Cabinet Order. And the only way to do that is to add it
to the list of Cabinet Orders, and from the word “append” we can
determine that it should be added to the end.
Although I can’t say I love this phrasing (I’d prefer something
like “appending the following item to the list of Cabinet Orders”),
I don’t think there’s much basis for an argument that it wouldn’t
work.
I find TRUE.
(This judgement assumes that CFJ 4072 is TRUE, as nix recently
found; it, along with many other things, may have to be revisited
in the event that that judgement changes.)
Re: BUS: [Arbitor] Judgment Reminder @Kate @Janet @Murphy @Gaelan
I file a motion to extend CFJ 4062 - busy tonight, sorry! I intend to submit a ruling broadly similar to my draft, but expanding somewhat on the literal meaning of the proposal text. Gaelan > On Mar 16, 2024, at 5:44 PM, nix via agora-business > wrote: > > The Arbitor's office kindly asks the following judges to either assign a > judgment, recuse, or file for extension for the corresponding CFJ(s) by > the end of today: > > Kate (CFJ 4063 assigned Mar 09, CFJ 4057 assigned Mar 10) > Janet (CFJ 4058 assigned Mar 09) > Murphy (CFJ 4069 assigned Mar 09) > Gaelan (CFJ 4062 assigned Mar 09) > > -- > nix >
BUS: Overly Effective Identity Theft Protection, Or, Is There A Rule 105
CFJ: There exists a rule 105.
The remainder of this message forms arguments, except for the
word “Gaelan” at the end, which is my signature.
In 2007, Proposal 4894 “Red Tape Scam” was adopted. It reads: {
Create a rule titled "Fantasy Rule Changes" with this text:
A proposal generally can, as part of its effect:
(a) Enact a rule. When enacted, rules have Power 1.
(b) Assign a number to a rule.
(c) Modify the power, title, or text of a rule.
(d) Repeal a rule. When a proposal repeals a rule, it ceases
to be a rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record
of it.
Repeal Rule 105 (Rule Changes).
[...]
Amend the rule titled "Fantasy Rule Changes" to have number 105,
Power 3, title "Rule Changes", and this text: [...]
}
In 2020, Proposal 8416 "Identity theft protection act v1.1” was
adopted. It reads: {
Amend Rule 2141 by replacing the text
Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor.
with
Every rule shall have an ID number, distinct among current and
former rules, to be assigned once by the Rulekeepor.
}
This wording continues to exist in 2141 today.
This is of course problematic, because - as noted above - the rule
we call “105” today (TRWC105T) in fact shares a number with the
original 105, so the statement that rules “shall” have distinct
ID numbers was false at the time of adoption.
It’s not entirely clear to me what the implications of this are. At
least one possibility is that TRWC105T has been waiting since 2020
for the Rulekeepor to assign it an ID number, and as such references
to “rule 105” in the meantime (e.g. in proposals) have failed, as no
(current) rule has that number. Notably, this includes P8539 “The
Great Rollback”, which repealed Statutory Instrumentation, and is
written such that an ineffective amendment of 105 would have caused
the entire proposal to do nothing. On the other hand, it’s possible
Statutory Instrumentation was never adopted either, due to the
recently-discovered issues with Rule 105’s four-day rule.
However, other interpretations of R2151 are possible - for example,
it may allow (or require) the Rulekeepor to assign IDs to rules with
non-distinct IDs (in the same way it allows the Rulekeepor to assign
IDs to rules with no ID at all), but not make a statement about the
inherent nature of IDs. This is supported by the fact that reading
the “shall” as platonic speaking-of-fact doesn’t really work,
because - as acknowledged later in the same sentence - every rule
exists without an ID until one is assigned by the Rulekeepor.
Finally, it’s not clear precisely that P4894’s attempt at renumbering
did, as the ruleset at the time never explicitly defines numbers as
a property of rules. In fact, the only reference to rule numbers in
the rules at the moment the renumbering happened (note that 105 was
briefly out of action due to the scam in progress) was a requirement
that rule numbers be included in the logical rulesets.
As this is a rather large mess with unclear implications - especially
considering the simultaneous mess with the four-day rule - it’s
somewhat difficult to pick out a good statement for a CFJ. I’ve
chosen the most obvious one, simply asking if there is a rule 150,
but I would request that the H. Judge of this case also elaborate
on the implications of their findings, for example the effects of
any proposals that referred to “rule 150” during any period where
such a rule did not exist.
References:
Proposal 4894:
https://randomnetcat.github.io/agora-historical-proposals/4894.txt
Proposal 8416: https://agoranomic.org/assessor/proposal/8416.txt
FLR immediately preceding 4894:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2007-January/002755.html
Thanks to Kate and Janet for brainstorming implications in Discord,
some of which I have poorly summarized here.
Gaelan
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9070-9072
I vote as follows: > On Mar 11, 2024, at 12:06 AM, secretsnail9 via agora-official > wrote: > > ID Author(s) AITitle > --- > 9070~ Yachay 1.0 Criminalize Egregious Miscommunication AGAINST - I’m generally inclined not to criminalize scam attempts, unless it happens so much it becomes an annoyance (which I don’t think is the case here?). The clarity rules for performing an action by announcement serve as adequate protection. > 9071~ snail 2.0 Loud Stone ENDORSE snail, seems fun > 9072* snail...[1] 3.0 Vacations v4 ENDORSE snail - this is a really good idea Gaelan
BUS: Rulekeeping is hard, turns out
I submit a claim of error on the most recent full logical ruleset, specifying the following errors, most of which are not the current H. Rulekeepor’s fault and several of which are mine: - Proposal 6732 did not amend rule 106. It did amend rule 105. https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2010-June/007821.html - Proposal 6734 did not amend rule 105. It did amend rule 106. https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2010-June/007835.html - Each rule change described as “Amended by R2430, 24 May 2017” is a cleaning by then-rulekeepor Gaelan, which in fact occurred on 23 May 2017. https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-May/034830.html - Rule 955 was also cleaned by then-rulekeepor Gaelan on 23 May 2017. This should have formed revision /22, but this does not appear in the history. https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-May/034830.html - The following rules' historical revision numbers are off by one: 649, 869, 879, 955 - The following rules’ historical revision numbers are off by two: 911 Additionally, some missing information that is probably worth including: - Rule 106 was amended on 3 May 1998 by Proposal 3736 (author Blob). (The current FLR gives no cause for the amendment.) See older FLRs, eg https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2010-June/007811.html Probably more to come at some point. My apologies for the large pile of work, Gaelan
BUS: NOTICE OF NO CONFIDENCE: wait what?
CFJ: The office of Prime Minister is vacant.
Arguments: {
Rule 2463/3 reads: {
Any player can cause the office of Prime Minister to become
vacant with Agoran consent by publishing a message with the
character string "MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE" in the subject line.
}
Which, to my reading, arguably defines a mechanism by
which I can "cause the office of Prime Minister to become
vacant with Agoran consent”. This is, of course, very strange,
as “with Agoran consent” is normally itself a mechanism.
}
Gaelan
BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9046-9048
TTttPF: > On Dec 10, 2023, at 10:53 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion > wrote: > > I vote as follows: > >> ID Author(s) AITitle >> --- >> 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. > ENDORSE Janet > > Gaelan
BUS: [Dreams] how do you do, fellow subgamers?
I envision a dream of gardens. Gaelan
BUS: A cleaning intent.
I intend without objection to clean Rule 2641 ("Wielding Stones”)
by appending "." to the sentence "While a stone is hot, it is
IMPOSSIBLE to wield it or to transfer it by announcement"
Gaelan
Re: BUS: Unsuspicious message
I object. Gaelan > On Dec 6, 2023, at 7:43 AM, Janet Cobb via agora-business > wrote: > > This is a test of the Emergency Agora System. This is only a test. > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason >
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9040-9045
> On Dec 4, 2023, at 2:19 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business > wrote: > > I vote as follows: > >> ID Author(s) AITitle >> --- >> 9040~ Janet, ais523 1.0 Adoption AI security > FOR I change my vote on 9040 to AGAINST; as Janet notes, its AI is insufficient. Gaelan
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9040-9045
I vote as follows: > ID Author(s) AITitle > --- > 9040~ Janet, ais523 1.0 Adoption AI security FOR > 9041* 4st, Murphy 3.0 Repeal 107 > 9042~ 4st, Murphy 1.0 Repeal 2464 > 9043~ 4st, Murphy 1.7 Repeal 2676 > 9044~ 4st, Murphy 2.0 Repeal 2573 > 9045* 4st, Murphy 3.0 Repeal 879 AGAINST each of the above Gaelan
BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
> On Dec 4, 2023, at 2:15 AM, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-official > wrote: > > PLAYERS INTERESTED IN JUDGING (does not self-ratify) > > >Player Since >-- >Yachay Wayllukuq2023-05-23 (assigned CFJ 4030) >ais523 2023-06-13 (assigned CFJ 4032) >Janet 2023-10-06 (assigned CFJ 4050) >snail 2023-10-06 (assigned CFJ 4051) >Murphy 2023-10-09 (assigned CFJ 4052) >kiako 2023-10-11 (registered interest) >4st 2023-11-28 (assigned CFJ 4060) >Kate2023-12-04 (registered interest) I become an interested judge. Gaelan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9035-9039
I have just been informed privately that I, in fact, TTttPF’d snail’s message
and not my own. May Marvy help me.
CFJ: {At the moment I called this CFJ, there exists a valid ballot submitted by
me FOR proposal 9038.} Arguments below, but some more game actions first.
I withdraw my votes, if any, on proposals 9035-9039. This probably fails, as
I probably haven’t submitted any.
I vote as follows on decisions to adopt the indicated proposals:
9035: FOR
9036: FOR
9037: PRESENT
9038: PRESENT
9039: AGAINST
Arguments on the CFJ: {
This concerns message <3334c0d0-efbe-4a2d-9620-2314a5abc...@canishe.com>, in
which I accidentally replied TTttPF to Snail’s message (itself to BUS), not my
own message to DIS. It is plausible that this could be viewed as me submitting
the same votes snail did.
However, this seems unlikely. “TTttPF” is a well-understand abbreviation that
describes a very particular action in a very particular context, namely replying
to one’s own message to a discussion forum). I instead replied to someone else’s
message to a public forum; in this context, a reasonable Agoran would be
unlikely
to find that it “clearly” meant anything, and thus does not "clearly [set] forth
the voter's intent to place the identified vote” as required by Rule 683/27.
}
Gaelan
> On Nov 27, 2023, at 10:42 AM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>
> …wait, that went to BUS in the first place; I swear I forgot to change the To
> line. Weird.
>
> Gaelan
>
>> On Nov 27, 2023, at 10:41 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>>
>> TTttPF (we’re back, baby)
>>
>>> On Nov 26, 2023, at 10:52 PM, secretsnail9 via agora-business
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I vote as follows:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 4:50 PM secretsnail9 via agora-official <
>>> agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>>>
If you vote on a proposal, please edit this spreadsheet with your votes:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1F39OHtBlZlQ8XVccqKCFtP-DPuHz4wPnujxbxkCN3LI/edit?usp=sharing
ID Author(s) AITitle
---
9035~ snail, 4st 2.0 Unbreaking Motions
>>> FOR
>>>
>>>
9036* Janet, ais523 3.0 AI security revisted
>>> Endorse Janet
>>>
>>>
9037~ Murphy 2.0 Uncrossed arms
>>> FOR
>>>
>>>
9038~ Murphy 1.0 Ratify the Ruleset Week
>>> FOR
>>>
>>>
9039~ juan1.0 Well, worth a shot
>>> AGAINST (just win the normal way)
>>>
>>> --
>>> snail
>>
>
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9035-9039
TTttPF (we’re back, baby) > On Nov 26, 2023, at 10:52 PM, secretsnail9 via agora-business > wrote: > > I vote as follows: > > On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 4:50 PM secretsnail9 via agora-official < > agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> If you vote on a proposal, please edit this spreadsheet with your votes: >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1F39OHtBlZlQ8XVccqKCFtP-DPuHz4wPnujxbxkCN3LI/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >> ID Author(s) AITitle >> --- >> 9035~ snail, 4st 2.0 Unbreaking Motions >> > FOR > > >> 9036* Janet, ais523 3.0 AI security revisted >> > Endorse Janet > > >> 9037~ Murphy 2.0 Uncrossed arms >> > FOR > > >> 9038~ Murphy 1.0 Ratify the Ruleset Week >> > FOR > > >> 9039~ juan1.0 Well, worth a shot >> > AGAINST (just win the normal way) > > -- > snail
Re: BUS: [Prime Minister] State-sanctioned celebrations (for real)
> 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 I vote AGAINST. I grant ais523 a promise with the text “I withdraw my vote on Janet’s proposal Celebration!, which I voted on in the message creating this promise.” Gaelan
BUS: Re: [Registrar] Deregistration intents
I activate myself. I transfer one of whatever the currency is these days to Janet - good catch, thanks! Gaelan > On Jun 6, 2023, at 12:14 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > Boo! > > Gaelan > >> On Jun 5, 2023, at 11:59 PM, juan wrote: >> >> I intend, with notice, to deregister the following players: >> >> a Player Registered Last change Contact >> - -- -- --- --- >> - 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 >> - tb1482023-02-06 2023-04-03 tb148 at proton dot me >> >> Convetions: >> * Player: Latest player name. >> * Registered: Date of latest registration. >> * Last change: Date of latest change in Activity. >> * Contact: URI for eir prefered contact method >> >> Legend for symbols: >> a Activity >> + Active >> - Inactive >> " Same value as cell to the left >> >> -- >> juan >> Registrar
BUS: Re: [Registrar] Deregistration intents
Boo! Gaelan > On Jun 5, 2023, at 11:59 PM, juan wrote: > > I intend, with notice, to deregister the following players: > > a Player Registered Last change Contact > - -- -- --- --- > - 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 > - tb1482023-02-06 2023-04-03 tb148 at proton dot me > > Convetions: > * Player: Latest player name. > * Registered: Date of latest registration. > * Last change: Date of latest change in Activity. > * Contact: URI for eir prefered contact method > > Legend for symbols: > a Activity > + Active > - Inactive > " Same value as cell to the left > > -- > juan > Registrar
BUS: a reward
I transfer nix one unit of whatever currency the cool kids are using these days. Like maybe y’all have got an official one? Gaelan
Re: BUS: Let's Not Overthink This Impulsive Decision
> On Nov 5, 2022, at 3:32 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-business > wrote: > > On 11/4/22 19:54, Aspen via agora-business wrote: >> I register. >> >> -Aspen > > > Welcome back! > > I cause Aspen to receive a welcome package. I cause Aspen to receive a welcome device. Gaelan
BUS: Re: ALT: Subject
I object. Gaelan > On Oct 20, 2022, at 7:51 PM, nix wrote: > > I intend to declare apathy, specifying myself and Aced7. > > -- > nix > Herald > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. > View/Reply Online (#59): https://agoranomic.groups.io/g/main/message/59 > Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/94460609/1487723 > Group Owner: main+ow...@agoranomic.groups.io > Unsubscribe: > https://agoranomic.groups.io/g/main/leave/3339860/1487723/345837368/xyzzy > [g...@canishe.com] > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8851-8856
Ttttpf > On Sep 3, 2022, at 1:17 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > > >> On Sep 2, 2022, at 5:37 PM, secretsnail9 via agora-official >> wrote: >> >> ID Author(s) AITitle >> --- >> 8851* 4st 3.0 Voter Protection > AGAINST, as previously discussed >> 8852~ 4st, Jason 2.0 Fix infractions > ENDORSE the Arbitor >> 8853* Jason 3.0 Unfortunately > FOR >> 8854* Jason 3.0 Attainder > FOR. Madrid, I’m sorry to do this. You’re one of our longest-standing > players, and generally a good one - you’ve done a lot to make Agora more > fun and interesting over the past half decade or so. But you’ve also gotten > on everyone’s nerves. A lot. And every time we’ve called you on it, you’ve > doubled down, making no (visible) effort to understand why we’re annoyed or > change your behavior. To reiterate, this isn’t about any specific incident - > this is about a long pattern of refusal to recognize community norms. > > Speaking for myself only, I’d be willing to consider your return after a > year or so, with a genuine apology that demonstrates understanding of why > this happened. >> 8855~ Jason 1.0 Extermination v1.1 > CONDITIONAL: FOR unless three or more players take an action permitted > by these rules, after the sending of this message. >> 8856~ 4st 2.0 Backup Justice > CONDITIONAL: FOR if either 8853 or 8854 failed, else AGAINST > > Gaelan
BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Blot Holdings
> On Aug 22, 2022, at 7:25 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > >> On Aug 22, 2022, at 6:24 PM, Forest Sweeney via agora-official >> wrote: >> >> BLOT HOLDINGS(self-ratifies) >> == >> Blots Person >> - - >> 2 Gaelen > > CoE: I have zero blots, as my alleged violation was never investigated. > > Also, my name’s spelled wrong throughout the report. > > Gaelan TTttPF
BUS: Free-for-all
100 times, I pay a fee of 0 coins to grant myself a Gaelan stamp. I pay a fee of 0 coins to buy a beast permit. 100 times, I pay a fee of 0 coins to buy bird food. Gaelan
Re: BUS: Would I lie to you?
> On Aug 21, 2022, at 6:42 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business > wrote: > > The following string: > > 4a2e0736f59b691e1b9b19abcd66ac0b374e2fce06ea652336b3a9cae1e9b5ef > > Was constructed by taking the SHA256 hash of a string containing > the word “walnut”. > > Gaelan > echo "hazelnut, you fool!" | shasum -a 256 4a2e0736f59b691e1b9b19abcd66ac0b374e2fce06ea652336b3a9cae1e9b5ef - I note the violation of No Faking in the quoted message. I CFJ: the infraction I committed in the quoted message has been forgiven. Arguments: At the time of the infraction, I couldn’t be established by a preponderance of evidence to have lied. Therefore, it was immediately and automatically forgiven by rule 2531/16. Gaelan
BUS: Would I lie to you?
The following string: 4a2e0736f59b691e1b9b19abcd66ac0b374e2fce06ea652336b3a9cae1e9b5ef Was constructed by taking the SHA256 hash of a string containing the word “walnut”. Gaelan
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8837-8848
I vote as follows. > On Aug 21, 2022, at 6:12 AM, secretsnail9 via agora-official > wrote: > > ID Author(s) AITitle > --- > 8837~ 4st 1.0 Is this a hard decision? AGAINST. Such tricks are a fun part of nomic, and I don’t see them causing any major issues. > 8838~ Murphy 1.0 Kickstarter ENDORSE the Horsened, else FOR > 8839* 4st 3.0 Not so hard decision AGAINST, as above > 8840* Jason 3.0 Cleanliness security FOR > 8841* Jason, Aspen, Gaelan3.0 Spivak Standardization Act v2 FOR > 8842~ Pilgore . . . [1] 2.0 Losing Focus FOR > 8843* G., Jason, Murphy 4.0 Time B Safe ENDORSE G. > 8844~ 4st, Jason 2.0 Fix dreams FOR > 8845~ secretsnail 1.0 Onicers AGAINST > 8846~ secretsnail 1.0 The Cheepening FOR > 8847~ secretsnail, 4st2.0 Bird Powerup FOR > 8848~ 4st 1.0 Goals PRESENT Gaelan
BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8829-8836
> On Aug 20, 2022, at 10:36 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-official > wrote: > > IDTitle Result > - > 8829 Look upon our worksADOPTED For each of 4st, CreateSource, cuddlybanana, duck, G., Jason, juan, Murphy, R. Lee, secretsnail, Trigon, and Vitor Gonçalves, I note that e is not dancing a powerful dance, in violation of rule 2029. For each infraction noted above, I intend, with consent, to forgive it. (Note for supporters: you can’t support an intent to forgive yourself.) I CFJ: the incidents noted above are infractions. Arguments: see CFJ 1881. Gaelan
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8829-8836
I vote as follows: > ID Author(s) AITitle > --- > 8829~ Gaelan, Trigon 1.0 Look upon our works FOR > 8830~ nix, Jason...[1]2.0 Justice & Forgiveness 2.1 FOR > 8831~ nix 2.0 Solidification AGAINST; usual grumpiness over proposals that replace entire text of rules without specifying what they’re changing > 8832~ nix, secretsnail...[2] 2.0 Coin Cleaning v2 ENDORSE the Treasuror > 8833~ nix 1.0 Etiquette TIMID FOR; while I quite like HTML reports, I think text-based online reports (or, to a lesser degree, HTML reports) are fine, and a SHOULD feels a little strong. Nevertheless, it’s only a SHOULD, the rest of the proposal’s good, and we can always fix it later > 8834~ nix, Jason, G. 1.0 Karma Revival (fixed) FOR > 8835~ secretsnail 2.0 Payday Increase AGAINST > 8836~ secretsnail 1.0 Horse Fixes FOR Gaelan
Re: BUS: (@Notary, @Collector) Promise Cashing
> I cash this promise. The string, which consitutes no game actions, but when
> SHA256 hashed gives the corresponding code, is (without the quotes):
> "gilloo pa onde va tu que la feria ta pa lla"
> --
> 4st
> Referee
I CFJ: {This message caused a Madrid stamp to be created.}
Arguments: that string is not "in the regular text format that is ubiquitous
and traditional for gameplay messages in Agora”.
Gaelan
Re: BUS: (@Horsened) [Motivation] The first gallop!
I gain 4 dollaries. Gaelan > On Aug 14, 2022, at 11:08 AM, secretsnail9 via agora-business > wrote: > > I motivate the horses: > The galloper is Cannon and the random number choice is 2. > > (Cannon will move 2 at the start of next week, when the horses run.) > > I gain 4 dollaries. (This is my weekly race action.) > -- > secretsnail
BUS: Proposal: Look our works
I create the following proposal:
{{{
Title: Look upon our works
AI: 1
Author: Gaelan
Co-authors: Trigon
Award each active player who did not vote FOR this proposal the patent title
Marvy.
}}}
Gaelan
BUS: [Nomaoic] Hi
I become a player in Nomaoic. I curse myself for naming it something that hard to type. Gaelan
Re: BUS: Deactivating Players
I give rule 869 a firm poke. Gaelan > On May 14, 2022, at 5:55 PM, secretsnail9 via agora-business > wrote: > > I intend, with notice, to make Gaelan inactive. > I intend, with notice, to make R. Lee inactive. > I intend, with notice, to make Telna inactive. > I intend, with notice, to make dahuman inactive. > -- > secretsnail
Re: BUS: [Obstructive Pooling] Proposed amendment: win card / winsome
> On Oct 21, 2021, at 7:12 PM, Falsifian via agora-business
> wrote:
>
> The below amendment would update the Obstructive Pooling contract to
> follow the "Win Card / Winsome" terminology, but keeps the old
> terminology "Victory Product" out of respect for our history. After the
> amendment, a Victory Product is a Win Card or Winsome.
>
> I propose and consent to the following amendment to the Obstructive
> Pooling contract:
>
> {
>
> In the contract text:
>
> First, replace every instance of "Victory Cards and Points" with "Win
> Cards and Winsomes".
>
> Then, replace every remaining instance of "Victory Cards" with "Win
> Cards", and every instance of "Victory Points" with "Winsomes".
>
> }
>
> --
> Falsifian
I consent. (I think I’m a party?)
Gaelan
BUS: [@Ref] Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport
I point my finger at Murphy for Making My Eyes Bleed. Gaelan > On Oct 17, 2021, at 10:52 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-official > wrote: > > Office Holder[1] Since Last Election Complexity > > ADoP Murphy 2020-07-032021-07-111 > ArbitorTelna 2021-06-222021-07-112 > Assessor Jason 2019-07-092021-10-173 > Distributoromd2018-06-15(never)[3]0 > Herald*nix2021-08-092021-08-222 > Mad Engineer ais523 2021-09-192021-09-191 > Ministor G. 2021-09-192021-09-241 > Notary ATMunn 2020-10-122021-10-172 > Prime Minister ~ Falsifian 2021-07-042021-07-040 > Promotor Aspen 2016-10-212021-07-043 > Referee *G. 2021-10-062021-07-112 > Registrar *Shy Owl2021-10-082021-07-181 > Rulekeepor Jason 2019-12-062021-07-043 > SpeakerTrigon 2021-09-152019-11-05 [3]0 > Stonemason Jason 2020-11-11(never) 1 > Tailor Murphy 2021-02-282021-07-111 > Tracker of the Device G. 2021-08-30(never) 1 > Treasuror Trigon 2020-05-012021-07-043 > Webmastor cuddlybanana2021-07-212021-10-141 >
BUS: Re: OFF: I claim the stuff from the contract
> On Oct 7, 2021, at 10:52 PM, BenjaminFrancis Rodriguez via agora-official > wrote: > > I join this contract. I transfer 2 boatloads of coins from the contract to > myself. I transfer 1 victory point from the contract to myself. transfer 1 > Pendant from the contract to myself. CFJ: In the quoted message, Benbot² became party to the (currently untitled) contract recently created by nix. Apologies to Benbot² for the trouble - there’s a *lot* to get used to when you’re starting out in Agora! We’ve all made a few mistakes before getting up to speed. Sending a message like this to agora-business should clear up the confusion: If I’m not already a party to the contract Nix created on October 7, 2021, I do the following: I join that contract. I transfer 2 boatloads of coins from that contract to myself. I transfer 1 victory point from that contract to myself. I transfer 1 Pendant from that contract to myself. A few notes: * The first paragraph - specifying that you only do something if something isn’t already the case - is a common trick for cleaning things up when you’re not sure if something you did worked. * To avoid ambiguity, I refer to the contract by it’s author and date of creation. There’s nothing special about that, anything that clearly refers to a certain contract would work. Normally we’d use the title (but this contract doesn’t have one yet), or if we’re replying to another email (i.e. using the reply button in your email client) it might be clear from context. -- Arguments: This message wasn’t in reply to any other message, so the only way to tell what contract “this contract” refers to is by noticing that it was sent soon after Nix created a contract,[1] or from reading context in the Discord. In my view, neither is sufficiently clear and unambiguous to meet the requirement in rule 478/39. [1] I note in particular that, due to email threading, I saw Benbot²’s message before I saw the contract in question Gaelan
BUS: Y’all know ALT goes into my main inbox, right?
I object to all intents to declare apathy. Gaelan
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8607-8629
> On Oct 4, 2021, at 5:26 AM, Aspen via agora-official > wrote: > > ID Author(s) AITitle > --- > 8607* Telna, ais523, Alexis 3.0 Asset Self-Ratification Fix PRESENT. Can’t form an opinion about this without digging through the archives to figure out what it’s trying to fix. > 8608* Telna, Jason, G., [1] 3.0 Powering Up CONDITIONAL: FOR if the Rulekeepor and G. vote FOR; else AGAINST > 8609& Jason 1.0 Axiom of Limitations FOR > 8610& Jason 1.7 No Immediate Shenanigans PRESENT. Harmless, but why isn’t this a CANNOT? > 8611& Jason, Trigon 1.0 Reasonably Responsive Reactivation FOR. I disagree with G here: people reactivating are often new-ish (they may have shown up briefly, and then come back for a second attempt). > 8612& Jason, G., Ørjan1.0 Tournament Conclusion Fixes v2 FOR > 8613* Jason, Trigon 3.0 The Name of the Win Cards v2 PRESENT. Don’t the continuity-of-entities rules handle the name change? > 8614* Jason 3.0 Simultaneity Security FOR > 8615* Jason 3.0 Supporter/Objector clarification v2 CONDITIONAL: FOR if Independence Day has not been and will not be adopted; else AGAINST > 8616& nix, Telna, Trigon 1.0 Narrowing Margins AGAINST. I’m worried that this doesn’t explicitly specify whether it means whole months or fractional months. Maybe I’m forgetting some general rule that says “math uses integers unless otherwise specified”. > 8617& nix, G. 1.0 Forgiveness PRESENT: Need context. > 8618& nix, Jason 1.0 Solo Acitivity FOR > 8619& ATMunn 1.0 The Bottomless Pit FOR > 8620& R. Lee 1.0 Im coolxa CONDITIONAL: If this proposal would pass if I voted AGAINST, FOR. Else AGAINST. If the above is inextricable, AGAINST. > 8621* R. Lee 3.0 Proposal spreading ENDORSE the Promotor > 8622* R. Lee 3.0 [2] CONDITIONAL: FOR if Independence Day has been or will be adopted, else PRESENT. Seems like a reasonable restriction to lift, but I’m wary of dramatically rewording the old dependent action rules without very careful consideration, like what went into Independence Day (which may have happened! I wasn’t there). > 8623& Trigon 1.0 No prizeless victory auctions FOR > 8624& Trigon 1.0 I'd like to thank the academy AGAINST. This is wonderful and wonderfully Agoran, and I’d love to have it, but unless I’m missing something, "post a Champion's Address” needs a requirement to be public. > 8625& Trigon 1.0 giving the gift of an amendment AGAINST. Missing “by announcement" > 8626* Trigon, Jason, ais523 3.0 pledge(2)(2) AGAINST. G thinks there’s a bug, and I trust em. But this does look like a good idea. > 8627& G. 1.0 INSANITY CLAUSES AGAINST. Scam risk seems way too high. > 8628& G. 2.0 tacking into the win ENDORSE the Treasuror > 8629* G., Telna, nix, [3] 3.0 Independence Day FOR Additionally, I vote AGAINST 8630. Gaelan
Re: BUS: [Survivor] Finale Script: Feats
> On Sep 15, 2021, at 9:15 PM, nix via agora-business
> wrote:
>
> I, channeling the other side, publish the following Finale Script:
>
> {
> Amend "#Finale" to read in full:
>
> Each Finale Survivor has 7 days from the adoption of the finale script
> to enter one or more of the following TESTS, marked in the subject line
> as a survivor move:
>
> - Test of Strength: make a strong power move of some kind in Agora;
>
> - Test of Brains: set a puzzle, similar in style to previous puzzle rounds,
> with the idea that ghosts would work on the puzzle together, and give the
> answer at the end of the week;
>
> - Test of Heart: a public, artistic performance.
>
> During the Finale, all Contestants CAN, by sending a message to the Host,
> vote on a specified Survivor.When all Contestants have voted, or 11 days
> after the Finale began, the
> Host CAN announce the Survivor who received the most votes, and Expel
> all other Survivors.
>
> }
>
> —
> nix
I become active. I support this finale script.
Gaelan
Re: BUS: Lol
I don’t understand what you’re testing, but I do object. Gaelan > On Aug 8, 2021, at 10:50 PM, Sarah S. via agora-business > wrote: > > I intend to have each active player win by apathy without objection > > (sorry, I'm just testing if the settings I tweaked mean I can also reply as > this email) > > > -- > R. Lee
BUS: CFJ 3918 judged FALSE
CFJ 3918 asserts that, as nobody pointed any fingers last week, we all have the most successful finger pointings and are therefore eligible to claim a justice card. As the caller quoted, Rule 2478/16 refers to "The player who initiated the most Finger Pointings [...] in the previous Agoran Week". That initial "the" matters. We may all be players who initiated the most finger pointings (that is, 0). But that doesn't mean - in fact, it means it can't be - that any of us are *the* player who initiated the most finger pointings. Indeed, there is no such player. I find FALSE. -- Apologies for a fairly quick-and-dirty ruling - I wanted to get something out before I go offline for a few days. Gaelan
BUS: [@Rulekeepor @Aspen] Party's over
One month having passed since the adoption of Rule 2652 "Popularity Contest", I End the Contest, causing that rule to repeal itself. Gaelan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Re: [Treasuror] [Victory Auction] First Victory Auction of July 2021
> On Jul 12, 2021, at 12:59 PM, Trigon via agora-discussion > wrote: > > I exhort you, if you are even kind of interested in the victory subgame, > please bid. You will likely never see this low of a going price and this > little competition (Falsifian, ATMunn, and I cannot rejoin the auction since > withdrawing is permanent). > > If you're not into the subgame itself, Falsifian has a deal out to pay 1000 > coins for one victory card (there are a few layers of indirection, but I'm > sure Falsifian would be willing to explain to you how to redeem them). Sure, why not. I bid 200 coins in this auction everybody's talking about. Gaelan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Slightly Inefficient Blot Removal Acquisition
> On Jul 4, 2021, at 8:33 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion > wrote: > > If doing so would be EFFECTIVE, I pay a fee of one blot-b-gone to expunge one > blot. > If doing so would be EFFECTIVE, I pay a fee of one blot-b-gone to expunge one > blot. TTttPF (For the new Agorans around here, since I think there are a few of them rn: TTttPF stands for This Time to the Public Forum, used when you accidentally sent a game action to agora-discussion.) Gaelan
BUS: Slightly Inefficient Blot Removal Acquisition
I create the following promise in the Library's possession: {
Cashing conditions: The bearer has transferred to Gaelan, in the same message,
two blot-be-gones.
Gaelan transfers the bearer one justice card.
}
Gaelan
BUS: Re: Registrar election
> On Jul 4, 2021, at 5:05 PM, Aspen via agora-business > wrote: > > I call an election for Registrar. I become a candidate for Registrar. Election speech: I'm terrible at holding on to offices long-term, but I'm not half bad at handling them every once in a while as the need comes up. (What this means in practice: I'll handle registrar for as long as I can, but history shows I usually tend to lose interest and fall behind after a month or two.) Gaelan
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8575
> On Jul 4, 2021, at 3:49 PM, Aris via agora-official > wrote: > > 8575* R. Lee 3.0 Nicer Definitions FOR Gaelan
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] 2021 Birthday Tournament: Survivor
> On Jul 2, 2021, at 11:21 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-business > wrote: > > I become a contestant. As do I. Gaelan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract & Promise Cleanup
> On Jun 18, 2021, at 8:46 AM, ATMunn via agora-business > wrote: > > Good point. I intend, without objection, to revoke the promise > "Treasure" from the Lost and Found Department I object; I believe the intent of that promise was to provide a prize for anyone with a way to steal from the L Gaelan
Re: BUS: [@Treasuror] Re: OFF: [Ministor] Ministor's Report REVISION 2
> On Jun 15, 2021, at 3:45 PM, Trigon via agora-business > wrote: > >> * Legislation - grant yourself a Legislative card I grant myself a legislative card. Gaelan
BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3910 Assigned to Gaelan
> On Jun 16, 2021, at 2:30 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > Having received no further feedback, I rule FALSE. Arguments from the > draft below. > > Feel free to motion to reconsider if necessary, ofc I, er, self-file a motion to reconsider. I rule TRUE. Gaelan
BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3910 Assigned to Gaelan
Having received no further feedback, I rule FALSE. Arguments from the draft below. Feel free to motion to reconsider if necessary, ofc Gaelan > On Jun 13, 2021, at 1:51 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > Rule 2141/16 tells us that "a rule's content takes the form of a text". > While you could define text as "a flat series of Unicode code points", in > which case yes, the caller's arguments would be correct. But that's not the > only argument, nor the one Agorans have traditionally used. > > Text, I find, has a rich structure consisting of paragraphs, bulleted lists, > etc; this structure is communicated by its formatting. CFJs 3452, 3777, > and 3778, and R2421/1, all seem to be coming from this viewpoint. > > So, what is the structure of the text we are appending? In this case, it's > a paragraph. It's offset from the text above around it, and generally > formatted as a distinct chunk. Therefore, we append it, as the paragraph > that it is, to the end of the rule. > > Note that this doesn't override the text of the proposal: if a proposal > formats some text as a paragraph, but provides more specific instructions > for what to do with it, that still takes precedence, as we're no longer > inserting text from the proposal verbatim, but following specific > instructions to change the content and/or structure of the rule text. For > example, these would not create new paragraphs: > > > Amend Rule XYZ by replacing the text: > > Llamas are an asset. > > With: > > Alpacas are an asset. > > Append Rule XYZ by appending the following to the end of the last > paragraph: > > Rules to the contrary withstanding, a dead llama cannot be your > friend. > > > In the first example, assume the sentence "Llamas are an asset" occurs > in the middle of an existing paragraph in the rule. Although the > text here is formatted as a paragraph, we're told to insert it in an > existing position, replacing existing text that was not a paragraph. > > In the second example, the text is again formatted as a paragraph, > but we have a specific instruction for what to do, so the structure > of the text in the proposal is not relevant.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3910 Assigned to Gaelan
> On Jun 6, 2021, at 9:17 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official > wrote: > > === CFJ 3910 === > > Proposal 8559, when taking effect, modified the text of Rule 1742 > by adding a new paragraph. > > == I file a motion to extend this case. Bah, I almost forgot about this one. I wrote up this judgement, and I think it's pretty good, but it was at least a bit controversial on the Discord, so I want to solicit a bit more feedback before a final judgement. A draft follows. Rule 2141/16 tells us that "a rule's content takes the form of a text". While you could define text as "a flat series of Unicode code points", in which case yes, the caller's arguments would be correct. But that's not the only argument, nor the one Agorans have traditionally used. Text, I find, has a rich structure consisting of paragraphs, bulleted lists, etc; this structure is communicated by its formatting. CFJs 3452, 3777, and 3778, and R2421/1, all seem to be coming from this viewpoint. So, what is the structure of the text we are appending? In this case, it's a paragraph. It's offset from the text above around it, and generally formatted as a distinct chunk. Therefore, we append it, as the paragraph that it is, to the end of the rule. Note that this doesn't override the text of the proposal: if a proposal formats some text as a paragraph, but provides more specific instructions for what to do with it, that still takes precedence, as we're no longer inserting text from the proposal verbatim, but following specific instructions to change the content and/or structure of the rule text. For example, these would not create new paragraphs: Amend Rule XYZ by replacing the text: Llamas are an asset. With: Alpacas are an asset. Append Rule XYZ by appending the following to the end of the last paragraph: Rules to the contrary withstanding, a dead llama cannot be your friend. In the first example, assume the sentence "Llamas are an asset" occurs in the middle of an existing paragraph in the rule. Although the text here is formatted as a paragraph, we're told to insert it in an existing position, replacing existing text that was not a paragraph. In the second example, the text is again formatted as a paragraph, but we have a specific instruction for what to do, so the structure of the text in the proposal is not relevant. BECAUSE THIS IS A DRAFT, I DO NOT judge CFJ 3910 TRUE. Gaelan
BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3907 Judged PARADOXICAL by Aris
> On Jun 6, 2021, at 9:14 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official > wrote: > > === CFJ 3907 === > > I have violated one of the quoted pledges. > > == > > Caller:Gaelan > > Judge: Aris > Judgement: PARADOXICAL > > == > > History: > > Called by Gaelan: 25 May 2021 19:31:51 > Assigned to Aris: 28 May 2021 00:12:08 > Judged PARADOXICAL by Aris: 05 Jun 2021 21:46:27 As this CFJ has been continuously judged PARADOXICAL for 7 days, and as CFJ 3911 has confirmed this CFJ "is about the effectiveness, possibility, or legality of a change in the gamestate", I hereby transcend logic. Gaelan
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8561-8572
> On Jun 6, 2021, at 4:14 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-official > wrote: > > ID Author(s) AITitle > --- > 8561& G., nix 2.0 Election Cycle FOR. Minor concern: the term "term-limited" means something very different from its real-world usage (where it means you've been elected too many times and are no longer eligible, e.g. a US president after two terms; here it just means you're up for election) > 8562* ATMunn, Aris3.0 Officializing Discord FOR. Most players are there, so it's a little silly to pretend it isn't official, and most of the important stuff is accessible via the IRC bridge. But I'm also sensitive to the concerns of the people who didn't support this, and am open to changing my vote. > 8563& Aris1.7 Determinacy is a Good Thing AGAINST. Paradox wins are fun and scam outlets are good. > 8564& Aris1.0 Sponsorship is not Co-authorship FOR. I think it was intended as an economic thing (pend other people's proposals and get rewarded for it) but I agree about the downsides. > 8565& Aris1.0 Popularity Contest AGAINST > 8566* Jason 3.0 Anti-AI escalation FOR > 8567* Jason 3.0 AI voting method clarification PRESENT. Haven't read up on the context enough to have an opinion here.F > 8568* Jason 3.0 Supporter/Objector clarification AGAINST. Not quite sure here, but the new wording feels quite clunky, and I'm deeply suspicious of changes to dependent actions. The speaker bug could be fixed by just changing the "after e has withdrawn the same type or response" to "after e has made the same type of response, even if withdrawn" > 8569* Jason, Aris, Murphy 3.0 Fixing Festivals FOR, though I'm a little confused > 8570* Jason 3.1 Emergency Regulation Clarification FOR. Still thing emergency regs are a bad idea tho > 8571& Jason 2.0 Gauntlet announcement patch FOR > 8572& Jason, Trigon 2.0 Thou shalt not disobey Trigon FOR Whew. Gaelan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: humble agoran farmer something something TIME MACHINES
> On Jun 9, 2021, at 5:01 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion > wrote: > > "grant" means "create in the possession of" (Rule 2577). I don't > believe any of the players in question are currently capable of doing > that. (Presumably you intended the promise to *transfer* you a victory > card. But that isn't what it says.) Bah, that's on me. I transfer Cuddlebeam a victory card. Gaelan
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8561-8572
> On Jun 8, 2021, at 3:54 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > > >> On Jun 8, 2021, at 9:17 AM, ais523 via agora-business >> mailto:agora-business@agoranomic.org>> wrote: >> >> I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to make this proposal democratic. > > I support. > > Gaelan pf
Re: BUS: There's no way this works, right?
CFJ: I have violated one of the quoted pledges. Gaelan > On May 22, 2021, at 5:45 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business > wrote: > > > >> On May 22, 2021, at 5:44 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business >> wrote: >> >> I pledge to violate this pledge, with a time window of one hour. >> >> (There has to be a paradox protection for pledges somewhere, right? >> Right But I can't find it, so let's find out) >> >> Gaelan > > wait, oops: I pledge to violate this pledge, with a time window of one day. > > Gaelan
Re: BUS: There's no way this works, right?
> On May 22, 2021, at 5:44 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business > wrote: > > I pledge to violate this pledge, with a time window of one hour. > > (There has to be a paradox protection for pledges somewhere, right? Right > But I can't find it, so let's find out) > > Gaelan wait, oops: I pledge to violate this pledge, with a time window of one day. Gaelan
BUS: There's no way this works, right?
I pledge to violate this pledge, with a time window of one hour. (There has to be a paradox protection for pledges somewhere, right? Right But I can't find it, so let's find out) Gaelan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] May Stone Auction
> On May 19, 2021, at 6:36 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business > wrote: > > I bid 670 coins on the Protection Stone. For each stone being auctioned, I bid n-1 coins, where n is the value of the current highest bid on that auction. Gaelan
BUS: glass houses and such
I wield my wealth stone, specifying myself. Gaelan
Re: BUS: seventeen used Focus
> On May 9, 2021, at 1:45 PM, seventeenMachine via agora-business > wrote: > > I grant myself one legislative card pursuant to my focus. > > > > - seventeenMachine > > > As do I. Gaelan
BUS: haha money rock go brrrrrr
I wield my wealth stone, specifying myself. Gaelan
Re: BUS: (@Referee again) I did a crime!
> On May 7, 2021, at 11:33 AM, Falsifian via agora-business > wrote: > > I Point my Finger at myself for committing the class 2 Crime of > Tardiness by not publishing a weekly report as Editor of the Agoran > Press for the week of April 19-25, 2021. Indeed. Credits are an asset, defined by the Agoran press, for which Falsifian is the recordkeepor (nobody else has been assigned for a while). Per 2166/30, eir report "report includes a list of all instances of [credits] and their owners". Per 2143/33, e is REQUIRED to publish that information at least once each week, and as e noted, e did not do so during the week of April 19-25, 2021. Per the same rule, that is the Class 2 Crime of Tardiness. Tardiness, as defined in 2143/33, is a class-2 crime. This infraction was minor and inconsequential, so I reduce the fine to 1 blot. If I have not done so already: I find Falsifian guilty of Tardiness, a violation of 2143/33. I impose the Cold Hand of Justice, levying a fine of 1 blot. This fine is forgivable; the specified words are [credit, credible, cream, crescendo, press, president, presumption, prestidigitation]. Gaelan
Re: BUS: @Referee I did a crime!
> On May 2, 2021, at 9:15 AM, Falsifian via agora-business > wrote: > > I Point my Finger at myself for failing to publish a weekly report as > Editor of the Agoran Press contract for the week of April 19-25, 2021. > > Relevent text: > >> The Editor is the recordkeepor for Credits. The player Assigned to the >> previous week is the recordkeepor for Credits, or Falsifian if nobody is >> Assigned. > > -- > Falsifian Indeed. Credits are an asset, defined by the Agoran press, for which Falsifian is the recordkeepor (nobody else has been assigned for a while). Per 2166/30, eir report "report includes a list of all instances of [credits] and their owners". Per 2143/33, e is REQUIRED to publish that information at least once each week, and as e noted, e did not do so during the week of April 19-25, 2021. Per the same rule, that is the Class 2 Crime of Tardiness. Tardiness, as defined in 2143/33, is a class-2 crime. This infraction was minor and inconsequential, so I reduce the fine to 1 blot. I find Falsifian guilty of Tardiness, a violation of 2143/33. I impose the Cold Hand of Justice, levying a fine of 1 blot. This fine is forgivable; the specified words are [credit, credible, cream, crescendo, press, president, presumption, prestidigitation]. Gaelan P.S. that wording is a little weird; you say the editor is the recordkeepor for credits, then say one specific person is the recordkeepor for credit. Surely you should say the editor is the recordkeepor for credits, then define who the editor is?
BUS: *QUANG*
I quang my wealth stone. (That is, I wield it, specifying myself) Gaelan
BUS: Trickle Back Economics
I wield my wealth stone, specifying myself. I transfer 5 coins to nix, and two coins each to Jason, seventeen, G., and Trigon. Gaelan
BUS: In which Gaelan renders emself pointless
I perform these actions if and only if they would result in my coin balance
increasing by at least 240: {
I become a party to Obstructive Pooling.
I deposit three victory points; that is, I transfer three victory points to
Falsifian and gain 30 decipoints.
I execute 30 of Falsifian's (Splat Market) buy orders for decipoints at 8 coins.
I cease to be a party to Obstructive Pooling.
}
I execute one of Falsifian's buy orders for victory cards at 200 coins.
Gaelan
BUS: You've got to admit, e has a point
I grant Cuddlebeam the following promise. {
Cashing conditions: The bearer transferred me, in the same message, 3 victory
points.
I grant Cuddlebeam the following promise: {
Cashing conditions: The bearer has published, in the same message, a
document with SHA-256
checksum 598bfa01ada0a41c70471c5873fcc988b7d3006d85fb8c99c2a776e8634e70c4;
and one of the
two scenarios described in that document has come true.
I act as described in that document.
}
}
Gaelan
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] Billboard Rock Chart - 4 Apr 2021
> On Apr 11, 2021, at 4:52 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business > wrote: > > I wield the wealth stone, specifying myself. > > Gaelan The sun rises in Nepal, and the Almighty Wheel of Universal Coordinated Time rolls over to a new Agoran Week. I wield the wealth stone, specifying myself. Gaelan
BUS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] Billboard Rock Chart - 4 Apr 2021
I wield the wealth stone, specifying myself. Gaelan > On Apr 11, 2021, at 4:03 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-official > wrote: > > THE BILLBOARD ROCK CHART (STONEMASON'S WEEKLY REPORT) > > Stone Owner Last Wielded Immune? > - - --- > Power Jason 2021-04-01 > Wealth Gaelan 2021-04-04Protection > Soul Agora 2021-02-14Agora > Sabotage Agora 2021-03-25Agora > Concentration Agora 2021-03-01Agora > Protection Gaelan 2021-04-04 > > History: > === > 2021-04-04 01:37:08 Gaelan wields Protection Stone, specifying Wealth Stone. > 2021-04-04 01:37:08 Gaelan wields Wealth Stone, specifying self. > 2021-04-01 15:38:10 Jason wields Power Stone, specifying self. > 2021-04-01 15:12:35 Wealth Stone ceases being immune after collection notice. > 2021-04-01 15:12:35 Concentration Stone is transferred from Jason to Agora > per collection notice. > 2021-04-01 15:12:35 Sabotage Stone is transferred from G. to Agora per > collection notice. > 2021-04-01 15:12:35 Soul Stone is transferred from Cuddlebeam to Agora per > collection notice. > 2021-03-25 18:27:27 G. wields Sabotage Stone, specifying referendum on > Proposal 8552. > 2021-03-23 21:19:37 Jason wields Power Stone, specifying self. > 2021-03-15 20:17:51 Jason transfers Power Stone from Agora after auction > resolution. > 2021-03-15 20:15:07 G. transfers Sabotage Stone from Agora after auction > resolution. > 2021-03-15 19:38:21 Gaelan wields Protection Stone, specifying Wealth Stone. > 2021-03-15 19:38:21 Gaelan wields Wealth Stone, specifying self. > 2021-03-15 19:38:21 Gaelan transfers Protection Stone from Agora after > auction resolution. > 2021-03-15 19:38:21 Gaelan transfers Wealth Stone from Agora after auction > resolution. > 2021-03-01 16:23:14 Jason wields Concentration Stone, specifying self. > 2021-03-01 15:30:27 Concentration Stone ceases being immune after collection > notice. > 2021-03-01 15:30:27 Protection Stone is transferred from Falsifian to Agora > per collection notice. > 2021-03-01 15:30:27 Sabotage Stone is transferred from ATMunn to Agora per > collection notice. > 2021-03-01 15:30:27 Wealth Stone is transferred from Gaelan to Agora per > collection notice. > 2021-03-01 15:30:27 Power Stone is transferred from Murphy to Agora per > collection notice. > 2021-02-23 07:47:20 Gaelan wields Wealth Stone, specifying self. > 2021-02-21 23:07:15 ATMunn transfers Sabotage Stone from Agora after auction > resolution. > 2021-02-15 02:54:17 Gaelan wields Wealth Stone, specifying self. > 2021-02-14 22:22:47 Gaelan wields Wealth Stone, specifying self. > 2021-02-14 22:22:47 Gaelan transfers Wealth Stone from Agora after auction > resolution. > 2021-02-14 17:14:09 Jason wields Concentration Stone, specifying self. > 2021-02-14 17:14:09 Falsifian transfers Concentration Stone to Jason. > 2021-02-14 17:10:39 Falsifian wields Protection Stone, specifying > Concentration Stone. > 2021-02-14 17:05:32 Falsifian transfers Soul Stone from self to Cuddlebeam > with Soul Stone. > 2021-02-14 17:05:32 Falsifian transfers Concentration Stone from Cuddlebeam > to self with Soul Stone. > 2021-02-02 20:20:34 Cuddlebeam transfers Soul Stone from self to Falsifian > with Soul Stone. > 2021-02-02 20:20:34 Cuddlebeam transfers Concentration Stone from Falsifian > to self with Soul Stone. > 2021-02-02 19:59:25 Protection Stone ceases being immune after Collection > Notice. > 2021-01-31 20:59:37 Falsifian wields Protection Stone, specifying Protection > Stone. > 2021-01-20 02:08:27 Falsifian transfers Soul Stone from self to Cuddlebeam > with Soul Stone. > 2021-01-20 02:08:27 Falsifian transfers Concentration Stone from Cuddlebeam > to self with Soul Stone. > 2021-01-18 21:42:15 Cuddlebeam wields Concentration Stone, specifying Gaelan. > 2021-01-18 21:04:55 ATMunn transfers Concentration Stone to Cuddlebeam. > 2021-01-17 00:15:02 Falsifian transfers Protection Stone from Agora after > auction resolution. > 2021-01-17 00:15:02 Falsifian transfers Soul Stone from Agora after auction > resolution. > 2021-01-13 20:53:54 ATMunn transfers Concentration Stone from Agora after > auction resolution. > 2021-01-02 02:58:24 Protection Stone is transferred from Murphy to Agora per > collection notice. > 2021-01-02 02:58:24 Sabotage Stone is transferred from Murphy to Agora per > collection notice. > 2021-01-02 02:58:24 Wealth Stone is transferred from ATMunn to Agora per > collection notice. > 2020-12-13 23:15:35 Murphy transfers Sabotage Stone from Agora after auction > resolution. > 2020-12-13 23:15:35 Murphy transfers Protection Stone from Agora after > auction resolution. > 2020-12-10 01:35:17 ATMunn wields Wealth Stone, specifying self. > 2020-12-10 01:30:18 ATMunn transfers Wealth Stone from Agora after auction > resolution. > 2020-12-01 20:32:23 Concentration
BUS: [Referee] Crime and Punishment - Apr 4 2021
Crime and Punishment (Referee's Weekly Report) Date of this report: 2021-04-04 Date of last report: 2021-03-28 (all times UTC) BLOT HOLDINGS(self-ratifies) BlotsActive player -- 7 R. Lee 1 Cuddlebeam 1 G. 1 nix BlotsZombie --- BlotsFugitive --- 2 Shelvacu PENDING FINGERS (does not self-ratify) No fingers are pending. AVAILABLE FORGIVENESS (does not self-ratify) BlotsPlayer Deadline --- - 1 G. Sat Apr 10, 01:30 UTC [words: cuddle beam Cuddlebeam humiliate humble humbug humidity] 1 nix Sat Apr 10, 01:52 UTC [words: internet internship internal international website webbing] BLOT HISTORY (does not self-ratify) PersonChange DateReason --- -- - nix+1 (f) 2021-04-04 Tardiness (Webmastor report) G. +1 (f) 2021-04-04 Tardiness (humiliating public reminder for indictment 0...01) 2021-03-28 [Date of Last Report] Cuddlebeam +1 2021-02-06 Unjustified Gesticulation R. Lee -1 2021-01-20 Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone R. Lee -1 2021-01-20 Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone omd-1 2021-01-20 Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone Gaelan -1 2021-01-20 Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone Trigon -1 2021-01-20 Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone Trigon -1 2021-01-20 Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone omd-1 2021-01-20 Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone Falsifian -1 2021-01-20 Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone nix-1 2021-01-20 Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone Gaelan -1 2021-01-18 Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone Gaelan -1 2021-01-18 Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone G. -1 2021-01-14 Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone G. -1 2021-01-14 Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone Gaelan +3 (f) 2021-01-03 Breach of Contract G. +2 2020-12-13 Tardiness (Cooper) nix+1 2020-12-13 Tardiness (Webmastor) R. Lee -72 2020-12-01 Expunged by Proposal 8525 Falsifian +1 2020-11-08 Tardiness (Registrar) Gaelan -1 2020-11-01 Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone Gaelan -1 2020-11-01 Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone Gaelan -1 2020-11-01 Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone Gaelan -1 2020-11-01 Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone Falsifian -1 2020-10-21 Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone Falsifian -1 2020-10-21 Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone Trigon +2 (f) 2020-10-11 Tardiness (Trigon) nix-1 2020-10-01 Expunged by Jason with 1 Blot-B-Gone ATMunn -1 2020-10-01 Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone Sehlvacu +2 (f) 2020-09-27 Tardiness (CFJ 3884) G. -2 2020-09-13 Apology Falsifian +2 2020-09-13 Missed report (Registrar) G. +2 (f) 2020-09-13 Oathbreaking ATMunn +1 2020-09-13 Missed report (Notary) Jason -1 2020-08-30 Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone Jason -1 2020-08-30 Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone Jason -1 2020-08-30 Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone Jason -1 2020-08-30 Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone Jason +2 2020-08-30 Tardiness (humiliating public reminder for Proposal 8489) Jason +2 2020-08-30 Tardiness (humiliating public reminder for Proposal 8488) Jason +0 2020-08-23 Unjustified Gesticulating R. Lee +1 2020-08-09 Breach of pledge (w/ indictment) Aris -1 2020-08-02 Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone Aris -1 2020-08-02 Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone Aris +2 2020-08-02 Tardiness (CFJ 3869) nix+1 2020-07-26 Breach of pledge Gaelan -1 2020-07-22 Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone Gaelan -1 2020-07-22 Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone Gaelan +2 2020-07-22 Faking (as Greg) Gaelan +2 2020-07-22 Faking (as Greg) Aris -1
Re: BUS: Self incrimination
> On Apr 1, 2021, at 11:23 AM, nix via agora-business > wrote: > > I point a finger at myself for the class 2 crime of Tardiness, for > failing to publish a Webmastor report in March. > > -- > nix > Webmastor, Ministor, Herald Indeed you did not. Tardiness, as defined in 2243/33, is a class-2 crime. This infraction was minor and inconsequential, so I reduce the fine to 1 blot. I find nix guilty of Tardiness, a violation of Rule 2243/33. I impose the Cold Hand of Justice, levying a fine of 1 blot. This fine is forgivable; the specified words are ["internet", "internship", "internal", "international", "website", "webbing"]. Gaelan
BUS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] Billboard Rock Chart - 1 Apr 2021
> On Apr 1, 2021, at 8:18 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-official > wrote: > > Stone Owner Last Wielded Immune? > - - --- > Power Jason 2021-03-23 > Wealth Gaelan 2021-03-15 > Soul Agora 2021-02-14Agora > Sabotage Agora [Never] Agora > Concentration Agora 2021-03-01Agora > Protection Gaelan 2021-03-15 I wield my wealth stone, specifying myself. I wield my protection stone, specifying my wealth stone. Gaelan
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Re: [Arbitor] Voting on the Indictment of Cuddlebeam
> On Apr 3, 2021, at 6:29 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business > wrote: > > I find G. guilty of violating Rule 2168/9 by Being Too Polite. I levy a fine > of 1 blot. This fine is forgivable; the specified words are ["cuddle", > "beam", "Cuddlebeam", "humiliate", "humble", "humbug", "humidity"]. Oops: If the quoted text didn't cause G. to gain a blot, I do the following: I find G. guilty of violating Rule 2168/9 by Being Too Polite. I impose the Cold Hand of Justice, levying a fine of 1 blot. This fine is forgivable; the specified words are ["cuddle", "beam", "Cuddlebeam", "humiliate", "humble", "humbug", "humidity"]. Gaelan
BUS: Re: OFF: Re: [Arbitor] Voting on the Indictment of Cuddlebeam
> On Mar 29, 2021, at 10:00 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official > wrote: > > I point a finger at myself for failure to issue a humiliating public > reminder for the first decision. G. does appear to have violated 2168/9 by failing, as the vote collector of this decision, to issue a Humiliating Public Reminder within four days of its voting period being extended. The base value of this crime is unspecified by the rule, and therefore 2. The crime was minor and accidental, so reduce that to 1. I find G. guilty of violating Rule 2168/9 by Being Too Polite. I levy a fine of 1 blot. This fine is forgivable; the specified words are ["cuddle", "beam", "Cuddlebeam", "humiliate", "humble", "humbug", "humidity"]. Gaelan
Re: BUS: Legislative transfer [attn. Treasuror]
> On Apr 3, 2021, at 5:42 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business > wrote: > > I transfer Gaelan 2 legislative cards. > > -- > Jason Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > I laugh maniacally. [Once Jason starts to get scared I'm just gonna steal eir cards,] I pay a set of 4 legislative cards to gain 10 pendants. I transfer 5 pendants to Jason. Gaelan
BUS: Re: DIS: (no subject)
I object. > On Apr 2, 2021, at 10:35 PM, Trigon via agora-discussion > wrote: > > this is a test message, please ignore.
BUS: [Referee] Crime and Punishment - Mar 28 2021
This report assumes that nothing has changed since Jason's report as deputy. I think, but am not sure, that's the case; please CoE if not. There's also that indictment going on; I need to read up on if and how I'm responsible for resolving that. Gaelan Crime and Punishment (Referee's Weekly Report) Date of this report: 2021-03-28 Date of last report: 2021-03-07 (all times UTC) BLOT HOLDINGS(self-ratifies) BlotsActive player -- 7 R. Lee 1 Cuddlebeam BlotsFugitive --- 2 Shelvacu PENDING FINGERS (does not self-ratify) No fingers are pending. BLOT HISTORY (does not self-ratify) PersonChange DateReason --- -- - Cuddlebeam +1 2021-02-06 Unjustified Gesticulation 2021-01-29 [Date of Last Report] R. Lee -1 2021-01-20 Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone R. Lee -1 2021-01-20 Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone omd-1 2021-01-20 Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone Gaelan -1 2021-01-20 Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone Trigon -1 2021-01-20 Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone Trigon -1 2021-01-20 Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone omd-1 2021-01-20 Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone Falsifian -1 2021-01-20 Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone nix-1 2021-01-20 Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone Gaelan -1 2021-01-18 Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone Gaelan -1 2021-01-18 Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone G. -1 2021-01-14 Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone G. -1 2021-01-14 Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone Gaelan +3 (f) 2021-01-03 Breach of Contract G. +2 2020-12-13 Tardiness (Cooper) nix+1 2020-12-13 Tardiness (Webmastor) R. Lee -72 2020-12-01 Expunged by Proposal 8525 Falsifian +1 2020-11-08 Tardiness (Registrar) Gaelan -1 2020-11-01 Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone Gaelan -1 2020-11-01 Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone Gaelan -1 2020-11-01 Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone Gaelan -1 2020-11-01 Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone Falsifian -1 2020-10-21 Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone Falsifian -1 2020-10-21 Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone Trigon +2 (f) 2020-10-11 Tardiness (Trigon) nix-1 2020-10-01 Expunged by Jason with 1 Blot-B-Gone ATMunn -1 2020-10-01 Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone Sehlvacu +2 (f) 2020-09-27 Tardiness (CFJ 3884) G. -2 2020-09-13 Apology Falsifian +2 2020-09-13 Missed report (Registrar) G. +2 (f) 2020-09-13 Oathbreaking ATMunn +1 2020-09-13 Missed report (Notary) Jason -1 2020-08-30 Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone Jason -1 2020-08-30 Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone Jason -1 2020-08-30 Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone Jason -1 2020-08-30 Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone Jason +2 2020-08-30 Tardiness (humiliating public reminder for Proposal 8489) Jason +2 2020-08-30 Tardiness (humiliating public reminder for Proposal 8488) Jason +0 2020-08-23 Unjustified Gesticulating R. Lee +1 2020-08-09 Breach of pledge (w/ indictment) Aris -1 2020-08-02 Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone Aris -1 2020-08-02 Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone Aris +2 2020-08-02 Tardiness (CFJ 3869) nix+1 2020-07-26 Breach of pledge Gaelan -1 2020-07-22 Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone Gaelan -1 2020-07-22 Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone Gaelan +2 2020-07-22 Faking (as Greg) Gaelan +2 2020-07-22 Faking (as Greg) Aris -1 2020-07-07 Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone R. Lee +40 2020-06-30 Creation by announcement R. Lee +40 2020-06-30 Creation by announcement Aris +1 (f) 2020-06-29 Tardiness (Promotor) nch-1 2020-06-12 Expunged G. +1 2020-06-10 Faking R. Lee -1 2020-06-08 Expunged twg-1 2020-06-07 Expunged by Jason twg-1 2020-06-07 Expunged by G.
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8554-8555 and Index of Proposals
For the avoidance of doubt, if my vote of any of these decisions is different
from the one quoted below, I change my vote to the one quoted below.
Gaelan
> On Mar 20, 2021, at 10:10 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business
> wrote:
>
> I vote as follows [identical to my previous votes, just redoing it because of
> the promotor issues]:
>
>
>> On Mar 20, 2021, at 8:44 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-official
>> wrote:
>>
>> ID Author(s) AITitle
>> ---
>> 8549& Aris, Gaelan, G.2.2 You Can Only Stack Turtles So High
>
> FOR
>
>> 8552& Jason, ais523 1.0 Apathy for all
>
> AGAINST for the moment--my general inclination is that players who want to
> participate can just register, and there's generally little reason to allow
> non-registered people to participate. If there's a good reason I'm missing,
> happy to hear it.
>
>> 8553& Jason 1.0 Slightly less apathetic
>
> FOR: I'd argue this is really a bug that should be fixed in the dependent
> action codes, but fixing it here is harmless and better than the status quo.
>
>> 8554& Aris, nix 2.2 I Want My Promise Back!
>
> FOR
>
>> 8555& G. 1.0 something to vote on
>
>
> CONDITIONAL: {
> If I have the highest unique voting strength, as defined by the proposal, on
> the decision to adopt this proposal, FOR; else AGAINST.
> }
>
>
> Gaelan
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8554-8555 and Index of Proposals
I vote as follows [identical to my previous votes, just redoing it because of
the promotor issues]:
> On Mar 20, 2021, at 8:44 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-official
> wrote:
>
> ID Author(s) AITitle
> ---
> 8549& Aris, Gaelan, G.2.2 You Can Only Stack Turtles So High
FOR
> 8552& Jason, ais523 1.0 Apathy for all
AGAINST for the moment--my general inclination is that players who want to
participate can just register, and there's generally little reason to allow
non-registered people to participate. If there's a good reason I'm missing,
happy to hear it.
> 8553& Jason 1.0 Slightly less apathetic
FOR: I'd argue this is really a bug that should be fixed in the dependent
action codes, but fixing it here is harmless and better than the status quo.
> 8554& Aris, nix 2.2 I Want My Promise Back!
FOR
> 8555& G. 1.0 something to vote on
CONDITIONAL: {
If I have the highest unique voting strength, as defined by the proposal, on
the decision to adopt this proposal, FOR; else AGAINST.
}
Gaelan
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8549-8553
I vote as follows.
> On Mar 20, 2021, at 3:55 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-official
> wrote:
>
> ID Author(s) AITitle
> ---
> 8549& Aris, Gaelan, G.2.2 You Can Only Stack Turtles So High
FOR
> 8550& Aris, nix 2.2 I Want My Promise Back!
FOR
> 8551& G. 1.0 something to vote on
If a decision to adopt the recent proposal beginning "The player who voted
unambiguously FOR, and had the highest" exists, I vote as follows on it:
CONDITIONAL: {
If I have the highest unique voting strength, as defined by the proposal, on
the decision to adopt this proposal, FOR; else AGAINST.
}
> 8552& Jason, ais523 1.0 Apathy for all
AGAINST for the moment—my general inclination is that players who want to
participate can just register, and there's generally little reason to allow
non-registered people to participate. If there's a good reason I'm missing,
happy to hear it.
> 8553& Jason 1.0 Slightly less apathetic
FOR: I'd argue this is really a bug that should be fixed in the dependent
action codes, but fixing it here is harmless and better than the status quo.
Gaelan
BUS: CFJ 3901 judged PARADOXICAL
At question is a promise that purports to recursively create and cash a promise
with identical text, causing G's vote on proposal 8543 to fluctuate
indefinitely between two values.
# What does it mean to cash a promise?
2618/2: { A promise's bearer CAN, by announcement, cash the promise, provided
that any conditions for cashing it specified by its text are unambiguously met.
By doing so, e acts on the creator of the promise's behalf, causing the creator
to act as if e published the promise's text, and destroys the promise. }
# Can a promise create a promise?
Promise creation is permitted by 2618/2: { A consenting player CAN, by
announcement, grant a specified entity a promise, specifying its text and
becoming its creator. }
G. is a player, and 2519/2 explicitly states that a player consents to an
action if { the action is taken as part of a promise which e created }; no
issues there. What about the "by announcement, specifying its text" bit? If G.
just published the text of the promise, it'd certainly qualify, so "act[ing] as
if e published the promise's text" should work fine.
No issues here.
# Can a promise cash a promise?
Sure, it's by announcement. We've already seen that works.
# Wait, can you cash your own promises at all?
This one's interesting. 2466/2 only gives the phrase "acting on behalf" any
special meaning when it's on behalf of another person, so "acting on one's own
behalf" doesn't really have any special meaning or significance. By a
plain-English reading, acting on one's behalf to do something is just doing the
thing. So I think this works just fine.
# What about that conditional in the promise?
Good question, heading. Agora's support for conditional actions is famously not
specified by the rules, only precedent, rooting from 478/38's definition of
performing an action "by announcement" as "unambiguously and clearly specifying
the action and announcing that e performs it". It's widely held that, at some
point, a conditional can become too difficult to resolve to meet the
"unambiguously and clearly" standard. Do we run into that here?
We generally permit conditionals based on ambiguous game state, for converging
the game state and such. This might fall into that category. But this doesn't
really matter, as I shall show below.
Let's say there exists some point at which the state of G.'s vote is so
ambiguous that it can no longer be used as a valid conditional. Where would
that point be? Certainly not after the first flip—at that point, it's just been
flipped once, so it's still perfectly clear. It remains clear after the second
flip, or the third flip, or indeed any finite number of flips; the ambiguity
arises only after an infinite (or arbitrarily large) number of flips back and
forth. Even if the conditional stopped functioning at that point, the state of
G's vote is already unknown. After all, if it was known, the conditional
wouldn't be ambiguous!
So even if the conditional stops functioning at some point, it would only be
after the damage was already done.
# So what's the verdict?
I find PARADOXICAL. Congratulations, G.!
By the way, there was some discussion about my draft ruling on the Discord that
might be worth reading; it's available starting at [0] or in the next Discord
digest.
[0]:
https://discord.com/channels/724077429412331560/724079019578097684/82291900393193472
Gaelan
