Re: DIS: Re: [CFJ] Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer becomes chattel
Jason wrote:
> On 3/1/20 2:16 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
> > If it were IMPOSSIBLE for Cuddlebeam to consent to actions, I would argue
> > that this didn’t work.
> >
> > Luckily, it isn’t. As far as I can tell, contracts can't make actions
> > IMPOSSIBLE, only ILLEGAL. Therefore, the last clause of Cuddlebeam’s
> > contract doesn’t work. It might still make those actions illegal, though.
> > Let’s find out.
> >
> > I point my finger at Cuddlebeam for violating the last paragraph of
> > 履✨Chattelbeam✨履: {
> > While there is an Active Supermaster, Cuddlebeam cannot perform actions
> > unless someone acts on their behalf to perform them.
> > }
> > Gaelan
>
>
> Gratuitous arguments (for Referee):
>
> R478 says this:
>
> > Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of
> > any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that no Player shall
> > be prohibited from participating in the Fora
>
>
> Arguably this means that Cuddlebeam cannot be punished for sending a
> message to a Forum, even if a contract says otherwise. See also CFJ 3538.
Despite what Gaelan wrote, I don't see any reasonable reading of that
sentence that imposes an obligation on CuddleBeam. It certainly attempts
(unsuccessfully) to actually make it IMPOSSIBLE for em to perform
actions, but it's not clear to me that IMPOSSIBLE necessarily implies
ILLEGAL. And even if it does, Jason makes a convincing argument that
the sending of messages couldn't be covered by it anyway.
So, I judge the Finger-Pointing to be Shenanigans. I acknowledge this
isn't clear-cut, though, so I'll point out that Agora has no double-
jeopardy laws. If someone disagrees with my ruling, feel free to Point
another Finger and I'll refer it to the courts.
-twg
Re: [attn G.] Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > Assuming this is the case, I deputise for the PM to appoint twg > Speaker. I award myself Cyan glitter. I award myself a Platinum Ribbon (for real this time). -twg
BUS: [attn ADoP] humble agoran farmer buys into high office
I cause CuddleBeam to become a candidate for Prime Minister. Election speech: "braaiiins" In the ongoing Prime Minister election, I vote [CuddleBeam, G., Aris], and I cause Bernie and CuddleBeam to endorse me. I pledge to give (or grant, or otherwise enable ownership of) 600 coins to each person who votes to endorse me in the ongoing Prime Minister election (and does not subsequently withdraw or change that vote). The time window of this pledge is 60 days and violating it is a Class 6 Crime. Note: I believe Aris is currently beating CuddleBeam by 2/3 of a vote. Polls close shortly after 7pm tonight. -twg
BUS: [DoV] [Do CuddleBeam's V] humble agoran farmer plays musical chairs
CuddleBeam wrote:
> So, yeah. Pretty much carte blanche, really.
Sweet!
I resign Tailor. I deputise for Tailor to grant Alexis 19 coins for eir
Emerald Glitter (awarded Feb 27, after the Notary election). I award
myself Cyan Glitter for deputising for Tailor.
I perform the following actions 200 times: {
I resign Tailor. I deputise for Tailor to grant myself 10 coins for
my Cyan Glitter. I award myself Cyan Glitter for deputising for
Tailor.
}
I give CuddleBeam 1000 coins. I act on CuddleBeam's behalf to pay 1000
coins to win the game. I appoint CuddleBeam Speaker. I award CuddleBeam
a Platinum Ribbon.
I pay 1000 coins to win the game. I resign Prime Minister and then
deputise for Prime Minister to appoint myself Speaker. I award myself a
Platinum Ribbon and Cyan Glitter.
-twg
Re: DIS: Re: [CFJ] Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer becomes chattel
CuddleBeam wrote: > I'm fully in twg's hands right now and aside from asking them to take > measures to fulfill the contract as intended (I should've probably added > that as a clause to the pledge, nw I understand why many contracts have > clauses like that), I assume full responsibility for what I did to myself - > although nothing stops me from grudge retaliating the best I can once I'm > free lol, if they try to weasel themselves out. Have I ever explicitly mentioned how much of a delight it is that you introduce so much chaos to the game every time you show up? Because it is extremely so. Thank you. I don't intend to weasel out of the pledge, don't worry. In fact, where do you stand on also being made to receive benefits other than winning? Like patent titles, offices, ribbons etc? Just wondering what your boundaries are in terms of irreversible effects, as a lot of cool stuff becomes possible when playing as two active players simultaneously. > Hrm. I can't consent to anything as an ACTION because I've locked myself > up. However I'm going to use point 3 of R2519 to produce "reasonably clear > context" and yell from outside the boundaries of Agora formality, > figuratively and literally. > > YO, TWG. I CONSENT TO YOU TAKING MEASURES TO FIX THE CONTRACT STUFF TO MAKE > IT MORE ACCORDING TO ITS INTENT. GO FOR IT. GREEN LIGHT. THUMBS UP. STAMP > OF APPROVAL. ALL YOURS, TIGER. OK, if I can, I amend 履✨Chattelbeam✨履 by changing this: > A Supermaster becomes Active (and ceases to be Inactive) by Pledging the > following: > "I Pledge that I will cause Cuddlebeam to Win Agora within 90 days. The "N" > of this > Pledge, for the purpose of its Class N Crime of Oathbreaking is a > googleplex.". to this: > A Supermaster becomes Active (and ceases to be Inactive) by Pledging the > following: > "I Pledge to cause Cuddlebeam to Win Agora. The "N" of this Pledge, for the > purpose of its Class N Crime of Oathbreaking, is a googolplex, and its time > window is 90 days.". This doesn't retroactively correct my pledge, but I intend to fulfill it (according to its spirit) shortly anyway. -twg
Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer becomes chattel
I cause myself to become CuddleBeam's Active Supermaster by pledging the following: I Pledge that I will cause Cuddlebeam to Win Agora within 90 days. The "N" of this Pledge, for the purpose of its Class N Crime of Oathbreaking is a googleplex. -twg
Re: BUS: [ADoP] More elections
Murphy wrote: > I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the Rulekeepor > election. I vote, and I cause Bernie to vote, to endorse the Rulekeepor. -twg
BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scroll of Agora
Alexis wrote: > On February 29, twg and Jason were awarded the title of > Champion, categorized as High Score. CoE: A typo in your Champion announcement meant you attempted (and failed?) to award Falsifian Champion instead of me. -twg
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8342-8348
I vote as follows: > ID Author(s)AITitle > --- > 8342j Gaelan, [1] 2.0 Calls with Memoranda Conditional: AGAINST if Gaelan votes AGAINST; otherwise PRESENT > 8343j twg 1.7 Judicial Jocularity Act FOR > 8344* Alexis 3.0 Unsubstantive interpretation Conditional: AGAINST if Alexis votes AGAINST; otherwise PRESENT > 8345j Jason2.0 Self-punishment Endorse Jason > 8346* Jason, ais5233.0 De-secure Black Ribbons v2 Endorse Jason > 8347* Jason3.0 R2141 power increase v2 Endorse Jason > 8348* Gaelan 3.1 Summaries Matter Conditional: AGAINST if Gaelan votes AGAINST; otherwise PRESENT On each above decision, I cause Bernie to endorse me. -twg
BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Resolving elections
Murphy wrote: > Quorum of 7 is met. twg is elected Referee. I award myself Emerald Glitter. -twg
Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer becomes chattel
CuddleBeam wrote: > A Supermaster becomes Active (and ceases to be Inactive) by Pledging the > following: > "I Pledge that Cuddlebeam will Win Agora within 90 days. The "N" of this > Pledge, for the purpose of its Class N Crime of Oathbreaking is a > googleplex.". Actually, upon re-reading, I'm not sure this works. R2450 says: If a Player makes a clear public pledge (syn. Oath) to perform (or refrain from performing) certain actions, The pledge in 履✨Chattelbeam✨履 doesn't talk about certain actions that _I_ might perform (or refrain from performing) - it's just a statement about future events, which might come under No Fakery, but I don't think is a valid pledge. CuddleBeam, I propose we amend 履✨Chattelbeam✨履 by changing this text: > I Pledge that Cuddlebeam will Win Agora within 90 days. to: > I Pledge that I will cause Cuddlebeam to Win Agora within 90 days. (For the avoidance of doubt: No part of this message is a pledge. However, I do intend to make the pledge when this is ironed out.) -twg
Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer becomes chattel
CuddleBeam wrote: > I create the following contract with myself called "履✨Chattelbeam✨履": > > --*-- > > This contract only has up to two parties, one of the which is the > Superzombie and the other is the Supermaster. > > A Player can become the Supermaster by announcement unless a Player already > currently is the Supermaster. > > [etc.] I become the Supermaster. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3810 Assigned to Jason
G. wrote: > I think Jason's qualification on the extraneous CAN gets it right: > > > though this could be interpreted as making > > a document purporting to be a Notice of Honour an actual, official > > Notice of Honour. I do not rule on this matter here, this is simply on > > observation. > > This is an assumption made in these two cases at least, though it's a > somewhat implicit assumption in both: > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3638 > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3657 I think this might be worth testing, if nobody has any objections. I submit this proposal: Title: Temporary CFJ Setup Adoption index: 1.0 Chamber: Justice Author: twg Co-authors: Enact a new Rule of Power 1.0 entitled "Temporary CFJ Setup" with the following text: Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, twg CANNOT publish a Notice of Honour. twg CAN, by announcement, cause this Rule to repeal itself. --- end of proposal --- I plan, while the rule is in effect, to attempt to publish a Notice of Honour and CFJ about its consequence (or lack thereof). -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [ADoP] More elections
Alexis wrote: > I initiate an election for Notary. I resign Notary. Gaelan wrote: > I become a candidate. On behalf of Gaelan: TTttPF. -twg
BUS: CFJ 3816 judged FALSE (Proposal 8311's change was not retroactive)
=== CFJ 3816 === The Arbitor is REQUIRED to grant Gaelan 5 coins by announcement for the judgement of CFJ 3806. == Caller:G. Judge: twg Judgement: FALSE == History: Called by G.: 14 Feb 2020 21:04:12 Assigned to twg: 19 Feb 2020 15:23:27 Judged FALSE by twg: [now] == Caller's Arguments: On January 29, R2496 read as follows [0]: >Each time a player fulfills a reward condition, the officer >associated with the condition CAN once, and SHALL in an >officially timely fashion grant the associated set of assets to the >player. [...] > * Judging a CFJ that e was assigned to without violating a time >limit to do so: 5 coins (Arbitor). On February 9, Gaelan judged CFJ 3806 (without violating a time limit). However, because R2496 did not contain the phrase "by announcement", it was REQUIRED but IMPOSSIBLE for the Arbitor to make this grant. On Feb 13, Proposal 8311 [1] both (a) fixed the by-announcement problem in R3496, and (b) granted rewards to everyone who should have earned them (such as Gaelan for CFJ 3806). HOWEVER, Proposal 8311 did not explicitly remove the Arbitor's requirement to grant the reward in question, nor did the proposal make it true that the "officer made the award once following the condition" - the proposal just made it POSSIBLE to meet the REQUIREMENT, and the proposal, not the officer, is what granted the reward. So: Is the Arbitor still required to make the award? This question would apply to all rewards that were granted due to Proposal 8311. [0] I'm not sure that version of R2496 appears in a published SLR, it is the results of proposals 8295 and 8304, found here: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora- official/2020-January/013387.html [1] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora- official/2020-February/013430.html == Judge's Arguments: I accept the timeline provided by the caller as true and accurate. To summarise: 29 January Rule 2496 provides that the Arbitor "SHALL in an officially timely fashion" grant 5 coins to the responsible party each time a CFJ is judged, but does not provide a mechanism for doing so. 9 February Gaelan judges CFJ 3806. 13 February Rule 2496 is amended to introduce a statement that the Arbitor "CAN once by announcement" grant 5 coins to the responsible party each time a CFJ is judged. 14 February This CFJ is initiated. The CFJ was initiated in an officially timely fashion (before the end of the next Agoran week) after the judgement of CFJ 3806. Therefore, by the text of Rule 2496, the Arbitor was undeniably REQUIRED at the time of the CFJ to grant Gaelan 5 coins; this part of the rule was not amended by the rule change on 13 February. However, this REQUIREment is not precisely what is referred to by the statement of this CFJ, which asks whether the Arbitor was "REQUIRED to grant Gaelan 5 coins _by announcement_" (emphasis mine). This is an unusual form of words. Where the rules impose obligations on players to perform specific actions, they rarely if ever demand that those actions be performed by specific methods, except insofar as it is only POSSIBLE to perform them by those methods. Therefore, I believe that the most sensible and plausible way to interpret this CFJ is that it is TRUE only if the following all hold TRUE: (i) the Arbitor was REQUIRED to grant Gaelan 5 coins; (ii) it was POSSIBLE for the Arbitor to grant Gaelan 5 coins by announcement; and (iii) there existed no other mechanism by which it was POSSIBLE for the Arbitor to grant Gaelan 5 coins. I have already indicated that point (i) holds; now I examine point (ii). The caller asserts that the language added to Rule 2496 on 13 February made it POSSIBLE for the Arbitor to grant Gaelan 5 coins for this CFJ. However, I do not see that this assertion is supported by the rules. The language in question reads in its essential parts, "Each time a player fulfills a reward condition, the officer... CAN once by announcement... grant [the reward] to the player." This is presented as simple cause and effect: whenever a triggering event (the fulfillment of a reward condition) occurs, the rule immediately causes an additional, subsequent event (the authorisation of the officer to grant the reward). It is this authorisation that makes it POSSIBLE for the officer to grant assets, not the mere existence
BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] The Ribbon Bar
I wrote: > > The Ribbon Bar (Tailor's Monthly Report) > > > Date of this report: 2020-02-18 > Date of last report: 2020-01-14 > (all times UTC) > > --- > ACTIVE PLAYERS ROGECBMUVIPLWKAT > --- > Falsifian OG CBMUV P AT CoE: Falsifian may have a Red Ribbon. (If this is the case, the Red Glitter value is 13, not 14.) I respond to this CoE by citing the unnumbered CFJ initiated by me at or about 6pm UTC on 14th February. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [DoV] Leaving the bourgeoisie
Alexis wrote: > I point a finger at myself for failing to appoint a Speaker in a timely > fashion. Oh good grief, I'm not _that_ disappointed - just found it ironic that I'd been narrowly beaten to Speaker twice in short succession (first by Falsifian). The chances that my not getting platinum _right now_ will have any significant effect down the line must be astronomically small. Besides, I'm planning an infinite-coins scam when Falsifian's currency revaluation proposal passes, so I'll get another shot. *ahem* The violation was clearly accidental, and for the reasons above, I judge that it was minor and inconsequential. Therefore I impose the Cold Hand of Justice on Alexis by levying a fine on em of the minimum possible value, 1 blot. This fine is forgivable; in a timely fashion, Alexis CAN expunge 1 blot from emself by publishing a formal apology of at least 200 words and including the words "malfeasance", "disorderly", "platinisation", "iridescence", "dolomite" and "Malbolge", explaining eir error, shame, remorse and ardent desire for self-improvement. Alexis wrote: > I resign Prime Minister. I deputise for Prime Minister to appoint Jason to the office of Speaker. I award myself Cyan Glitter. (An acceptable substitute :P) -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Re-renumbered Index: Proposals 8322-8341
Jason wrote: > Depending on how evil I was feeling as Assessor, I could probably > construe that has having your zombie endorse me. *sigh* I cause Bernie to retract all eir votes in Agoran decisions on whether to adopt a proposal that are currently in their voting periods. I cause Bernie to vote to endorse me in each Agoran decision on whether to adopt a proposal that is currently in its voting period. -twg
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Re-renumbered Index: Proposals 8322-8341
Jason wrote: > Since there was apparently no actual zombie auction, I still have Rance. > I cause Rance to vote to ENDORSE me in every Agoran decision on whether > to adopt a proposal currently in its voting period. Oh, right. I do the same for Bernie. -twg
Re: BUS: Missed report
Alexis wrote: > I point a finger at myself for failing to publish the Herald's weekly > report last week. > > I point a finger at myself for failing to publish a correction to the > Herald's weekly report after Gaelan's CoE in a timely fashion. > > I request that the Referee note that these are substantially the same > offence and not double-punish me for it. > > (A complete oversight; I updated it and forgot about it!) These offences were minor, in that nobody but the perpetrator emself noticed they had occurred; accidental, as e has plausibly testified; and inconsequential, in that the unpublished information in question had no gameplay effect whatsoever. So I judge that the lowest possible fine of 1 blot is appropriate for each infraction. I impose the Cold Hand of Justice on Alexis by levying a fine of 1 blot on em for failing to publish the Herald's weekly report in the week commencing 3 February. I impose the Cold Hand of Justice on Alexis by levying a fine of 1 blot on em for failing to respond in a timely fashion to the doubt Gaelan issued against the Herald's weekly report of 1 February. These fines are, collectively, forgivable. Alexis CAN, in a timely fashion, expunge 2 blots from emself by publishing a formal apology of at least 200 words and including the words "shambolic", "muddlement", "sanity", "hearthflame", "nappe" and "INTERCAL", explaining eir error, shame, remorse and ardent desire for self-improvement. (I think this works: to my knowledge, there is nothing in the rules saying an apology can only count for one fine.) -twg
Re: BUS: Re: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
G. wrote: > I point a finger at Gaelan for failure to judge CFJ 3795 in a timely > fashion. I recuse em from this case. > I point a finger at omd for failure to judge CFJ 3804 in a timely > fashion. I recuse em from this case. These infractions undeniably occurred. They were not profitable, abusive of official position(s), or especially egregious, but they did carry some consequence for the Arbitor's workload and could easily have been avoided by self-recusal. Therefore I believe it is not appropriate to increase or reduce the fine from the base value of 2. I impose the Cold Hand of Justice on Gaelan by levying a fine of 2 blots on em for eir failure to judge CFJ 3795 in a timely fashion. I impose the Cold Hand of Justice on omd by levying a fine of 2 blots on em for eir failure to judge CFJ 3804 in a timely fashion. -twg
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Re-renumbered Index: Proposals 8322-8341
I vote as follows: > ID Author(s)AITitle > --- > 8322* Falsifian, Alexis, twg 3.0 Unrepetition v1.1 Why not? ENDORSE Falsifian. > 8323* Jason3.0 Secure Ribbons Conditional: AGAINST if Jason votes AGAINST; otherwise PRESENT. Undeniably a good idea, but I can't quite bring myself to give up on such a juicy scam target. > 8324l Falsifian2.0 Democratic unassignment ENDORSE Falsifian > 8325e Falsifian2.0 Inflation Vote Conditional: AGAINST if Falsifian votes AGAINST; otherwise PRESENT. (Remaining officially neutral as Treasuror.) NB: Your definition of "Median" does not match the usual mathematical definition for cases where there are an even number of ballots. For example, for [1, 1000, 3000, 300], it picks 3000. > 8326* Falsifian3.0 Attempted cleanup ENDORSE Falsifian > 8327l Falsifian1.0 Blink test v1.2 ENDORSE Falsifian > 8328* Falsifian3.0 The Eternal Sprit ENDRSE Falsfian > 8329p Alexis 1.0 RtRW Reschedule ENDORSE Alexis > 8330* G. 3.0 No looting white ribbons ENDORSE G. > 8331j Warrigal 1.7 Promissory cleanliness Conditional: AGAINST if Warrigal votes AGAINST; otherwise PRESENT. I don't object in principle, but, I mean, you didn't _have_ to set your pledge's expiry date a full year in the future... > 8332f Murphy, Alexis 1.0 Switch Responsibility Responsibility AGAINST. The existing behaviour should already take care of this. I wouldn't be totally opposed to a fallback like this to be used in the unlikely event of a bug, but in that case it should be Without Objection. > 8333l Murphy, Alexis 2.0 Meaningful extra votes AGAINST. Would like to playtest the current voting strength rules for a bit before trying to fiddle with them. > 8334e Murphy, Alexis 2.0 Meaningless extra coins AGAINST. Trivially bypassed with zombies or contracts. > 8335f Murphy 2.0 Consistent ADoP duties AGAINST; again, there is already text in the rules for this situation. I agree it could do with some cleanup, but this doesn't do that. > 8336* Jason3.0 Define "publicly" ENDORSE Jason > 8337e Murphy 1.0 Fix Auctions AGAINST per Jason > 8338l Murphy 2.0 Clarify quorum (option 1) ENDORSE Murphy > 8339l Murphy 2.0 Clarify quorum (option 2) Conditional: AGAINST if Murphy votes AGAINST; otherwise PRESENT. > 8340p Alexis 1.0 The Paradox of Self-Appointment ENDORSE Alexis > 8341* Alexis, G. 3.0 Support of the Person Still AGAINST, based on the mathematics of Agoran consent. I agree with you that it would make more intuitive sense for it to work in the same way as adoption indices, but the existing uses in the ruleset are built around the assumption that it doesn't. If you want to change the behaviour then I really think it needs to come with a review of the current thresholds used for dependent actions with Agoran consent. Especially for low values of N, where the effect is more pronounced. -twg
[another CFJ] Re: [Proposal] Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] [attn Rulekeepor] Re: BUS: [attn: Tailor] Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8308-8321
I wrote: > I submit the following proposal: > > Title: 풥퓊풹풾풸풾풶퓁 풥표풸퓊퓁풶퓇풾퓉퓎 풜풸퓉 > Adoption index: 1.7 > Chamber: Justice > Author: twg > Co-authors: > > Amend Rule 591, "Delivering Judgement", by replacing each occurrence of > "DISMISS" with "¯\(ツ)/¯". > > [Very few CFJs get judged DISMISS at the moment; I figure the generation > of mirth outweighs the slight inconvenience of having to copy-and-paste > it from the ruleset occasionally.] CFJ: "Today, I submitted a proposal entitled 'Judicial Jocularity Act'". Arguments: I don't think "title" is ever explicitly defined in the rules. Is the exact sequence of Unicode characters important? Or is it just the English-language words made up of those characters? If I included invisible Unicode characters in a proposal title, so that it looked like plain ASCII but wasn't, would the answer be any different? (Disclaimer: This CFJ is at least 30% motivated by a desire to see how long the subject line can get before something breaks.) -twg
[Proposal] Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] [attn Rulekeepor] Re: BUS: [attn: Tailor] Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8308-8321
Jason wrote: > On 2/14/20 12:59 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business wrote: > > *sigh* > > > > CFJ, barring Falsifian: "Falsifian was awarded a Red Ribbon today." > > > > Arguments: > > > > Rule 2438 says: > > > > Red (R): When a proposal is adopted and changes at least one rule > > that, immediately before or after the change, has Power >= 3, its > > proposer earns a Red Ribbon. > > > > i.e., if a proposal does not change a rule, it does not earn its author > > a Red Ribbon, even if it has Power >= 3. > > > > There is some uncertainty about whether Proposal 8308 changed a rule. > > Some time ago (can't find the thread), Alexis asserted that it didn't > > because it was too vague. > > > > The Rulekeepor is probably the best person to rule on this (no pun > > intended). > > > > -twg > > > I'll admit I handled this inconsistently: when the original chambers > proposal was adopted, I assumed it worked by adding the list element to > the end of the list. Then, when the fix proposal was adopted, I recorded > it as amending the rule without changing the text (just to ensure there > was a record of it). > > So, the official Rulekeepor stance right now is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . I submit the following proposal: Title: 풥퓊풹풾풸풾풶퓁 풥표풸퓊퓁풶퓇풾퓉퓎 풜풸퓉 Adoption index: 1.7 Chamber: Justice Author: twg Co-authors: Amend Rule 591, "Delivering Judgement", by replacing each occurrence of "DISMISS" with "¯\_(ツ)_/¯". [Very few CFJs get judged DISMISS at the moment; I figure the generation of mirth outweighs the slight inconvenience of having to copy-and-paste it from the ruleset occasionally.] --- end of proposal --- -twg
BUS: [CFJ] [attn Rulekeepor] Re: BUS: [attn: Tailor] Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8308-8321
Falsifian wrote: > On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 02:18, Jason Cobb via agora-official > wrote: > > PROPOSAL 8308 (Imposing order on the order) > ... > > OUTCOME: ADOPTED > > I award myself a Red ribbon. *sigh* CFJ, barring Falsifian: "Falsifian was awarded a Red Ribbon today." Arguments: Rule 2438 says: Red (R): When a proposal is adopted and changes at least one rule that, immediately before or after the change, has Power >= 3, its proposer earns a Red Ribbon. i.e., if a proposal does not change a rule, it does not earn its author a Red Ribbon, even if it has Power >= 3. There is some uncertainty about whether Proposal 8308 changed a rule. Some time ago (can't find the thread), Alexis asserted that it didn't because it was too vague. The Rulekeepor is probably the best person to rule on this (no pun intended). -twg
Re: BUS: Registration and Birthday
Aris wrote: > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 5:09 AM Jason Cobb via agora-business > wrote: > > > > > > > Happy birthday! I grant Falsifian 3 coins. > > > > > > Likewise! So do I! -twg
BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8308-8321
Jason wrote: > PROPOSAL 8311 (Rewards Patch & Equitable Remedy) > FOR (9): Alexis%, Aris, Bernie, Falsifian$, Gaelan, Jason, Rance, omd, twg& > AGAINST (0): > PRESENT (0): > BALLOTS: 9 > AI (F/A): 34/0 (AI=1.0) > OUTCOME: ADOPTED I award myself an Orange Ribbon. -twg
BUS: [Treasuror] Statement on Proposal 8311's Effect
I believe that Proposal 8311 grants coins as follows. I encourage everyone to check the total for their name and issue doubts if they believe them to be inaccurate. Assuming I receive no CoEs, I plan to include the below coin totals in the forthcoming Treasuror report. I believe that rewards now work as intended, following Proposal 8311's effect. Therefore the Assessor is responsible for issuing rewards for adopted proposals starting with Proposal 8312. I apologise for the mayhem over the last couple of weeks. -twg Alexis: 11Reward (Proposal 8288) 18Reward (Proposal 8305) 14Red Glitter (Proposal 8305) 5Reward (Herald weekly, w/c 27 Jan) 5Reward (Herald monthly, Feb) - 53 Aris: 5Reward (Proposal 8296) 24Reward (Proposal 8297) 21Reward (Proposal 8301) 12Reward (Proposal 8302) 12Reward (Proposal 8303) 5Reward (Promotor weekly, w/c 27 Jan) 5Reward (CFJ 3805) - 84 Bernie: 24Reward (Proposal 8291) 18Reward (Proposal 8292) 21Reward (Proposal 8295) 14Reward (Proposal 8304) - 77 Falsifian: 5Reward (Registrar monthly, Feb) 21Reward (Proposal 8308) - 26 Gaelaaan: 5Reward (Notary weekly, w/c 27 Jan) 5Reward (Notary weekly, w/c 3 Feb) 5Reward (CFJ 3806) - 15 G.: 33Reward (Proposal 8290) 14Red Glitter (Proposal 8290) 13Orange Glitter (Proposal 8290) 5Reward (Arbitor weekly, w/c 3 Feb) 5Reward (CFJ 3797) 5Reward (CFJ 3798) 5Reward (CFJ 3799) 14Blue Glitter (CFJ 3797) 5Reward (CFJ 3808) - 99 Jason: 5Reward (assessing proposals, w/c 27 Jan) 20Indigo Glitter (Baccalaureate of Nomic) [disputed by CFJ] 5Reward (CFJ 3788) 14Blue Glitter (CFJ 3788) 5Reward (Rulekeepor weekly, w/c 10 Feb) - 49 Murphy: 5Reward (ADoP weekly, w/c 3 Feb) - 5 twg: 5Reward (CFJ 3800) 13Blue Glitter (CFJ 3800) 5Reward (CFJ 3801) 13Blue Glitter (CFJ 3801) 5Reward (CFJ 3802) 13Blue Glitter (CFJ 3802) 5Reward (CFJ 3803) 13Blue Glitter (CFJ 3803) 5Reward (Treasuror weekly, w/c 3 Feb) 5Reward (Referee weekly, w/c 3 Feb) - 82
Re: BUS: [ADoP] Election voting opens
Murphy wrote: > I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the Referee > election. I vote [twg, Alexis]. > I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the Registrar > election. I vote [Falsifian, Gaelan]. I cause Bernie to endorse me in both elections. -twg
BUS: since we're doing this now
I pay 1000 coins to win the game. -twg
BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport
Murphy wrote: > Office Interest > > Treasuror Efficiency, Efficiency > CoE: The Treasuror's Interest is [Economy, Economy]. -twg
Re: BUS: Election Intents
Murphy wrote: > Alexis wrote: > > > I intend, with 2 Support, to initiate an election for each of the > > following offices: > > > > * Assessor, as I'm dissatisfied with the sparse content of resolutions; > > * Notary, as it is a brand new office; > > * Rulekeepor, as it is interim; and > > * Prime Minister, as it is interim. > > I support each of the last three. For each of the last three, I support and do so. -twg
Re: BUS: [Registrar] February zombie auction status
Gaelan wrote:
> Crap, Jason’s bid came in as I was writing this message. I point my
> finger at myself for violating rule 2550/1: {A person SHALL NOT bid on
> an Auction if it would be impossible for em to pay that amount at the
> conclusion of the Auction.}
Unless I'm misreading this, it's perfectly possible that you might pay
52 coins at the end of the auction. For example, Murphy might give you
the extra coins you need.
I declare this Finger Pointing to be Shenanigans.
-twg
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: [Assessor] Draft resolutions of Proposals 8308-8321
Alexis wrote: > I withdraw the proposal 'Zombie trade'. I point my finger at Aris for > failing to respond to the cited CoE in a timely fashion. It's a fair cop. There's no sense in which Aris' infraction was willful/profitable/etc., but it, combined with the original error in the proposal's AI, undeniably did cause confusion (albeit brief) about the gamestate, as well as delay in the legislative process for Alexis's proposal. So I think that the base fine is appropriate. I Impose the Cold Hand of Justice by levying a fine of 2 blots on Aris for eir Tardiness in failing to respond to a claim of error in a timely fashion. This fine is forgivable; Aris CAN, in a timely fashion, expunge 2 blots from emself by publishing a formal apology of at least 200 words and including the words "ingrate", "slothful", "pocketwatch", "lambent", "pallasite", "crayfish" and "oops", explaining eir error, shame, remorse and ardent desire for self-improvement. -twg
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
I wrote: > Hmm, interesting one! We've all been doing this for ages without ever > questioning whether it was actually POSSIBLE. As far as I can tell, the > earliest usage was by D. Margaux in 2018 > (https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg32681.html), > but nobody CFJed it because we got distracted by a related CFJ from > Trigon (later withdrawn? can't find any record of it in G.'s archive) > and an argument between Aris and G. Definitely worth a judgement. > > On balance, I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation. The effect of > a Notice of Honour is "considered to be a 'transfer' of karma" (R2510), > and asset transfers are undeniably a game action; it would be a bit of a > stretch to argue that karma transfers are not. So although publication > itself is excluded from acting-on-behalf, I would argue that karma > transfers are perfectly kosher, and therefore that "[an] agent CAN > perform the action in the same manner in which the principal CAN do so" > (R2466) - i.e. by means of publishing a Notice of Honour. > > I CFJ, barring Alexis: "It is generally POSSIBLE to act on behalf of a > zombie to transfer karma." TTttPF. -twg
BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
Gaelan wrote: > FYI, for anyone in need of a more up-to-date ruleset, my online ruleset > viewer (https://agora-ruleset.gaelan.me) is based on the Rulekeepor’s > GitHub repository, so it may be (and is, at the moment) more up to date > than the latest SLR. Notice of Honour: +1 Gaelan (helpfully providing a ruleset at a time when several large changes are going on simultaneously) -1 Jason (delaying ruleset publication at said time) On Bernie's behalf, Notice of Honour: -1 Gaelan (applying the CSS for eir ruleset primarily via arbitrary emoji. I don't know why you would do this) +1 Jason (having to assess two consecutive large proposal distributions, including proposals that change voting strengths) -twg
BUS: Redecoration
It's now been 7 days since the latest possible time my Raised Banner could have taken effect (2020-02-01 22:34 UTC), so I can once again receive Ribbons and Glitter. I temporarily deputise for the ADoP to end the uncontested election for Tailor, appointing myself to the office. (This requires no notice because the deadline expired well over 14 days ago.) * I award myself a Cyan Ribbon for deputising for the ADoP. * I award myself an Emerald Ribbon for being elected Tailor. * I award myself an Indigo Ribbon for achieving the degree of Associate of Nomic. * I award myself an Ultraviolet Ribbon for becoming Champion. * As Tailor, I award myself a Gray Ribbon. * I act on behalf of Bernie to award myself a White Ribbon. * Pursuant to the above, I award myself a Transparent Ribbon. -twg
BUS: Re: OFF: [Notary] Weekly Report
Gaelan wrote: > PLEDGE > |Jason Promises to Reassess Jason| > |MADE: Jan 30 2020 13:33|WINDOW: 7dy|EXPIRES: Feb 06 2020 13:33|N: 2| > > CoE on each resolution for a proposal with number not less than 8292, as > well as 8290: they're wrong. For the next seven days, I pledge not to > deny any of these CoEs. > CoE: This pledge has expired. -twg
Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
Jason wrote:
> Sorry, do people have other support/objections for these? I would prefer
> not to just let them die.
I object to the capitalisation one for the same reason as Alexis.
I object to the lists one because the example given is very confusing.
It's not an inline list because it's separated from the surrounding
prose, and it's not a block list because the elements aren't separated
by line breaks. And why are those spacing restrictions needed anyway
when R2429 lets you, as Rulekeepor, change spacing freely?
I support the pronouns one, although I think it could do with amending
to specify the other declensions ("eir", "eirs", "emself") too.
-twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3793 judged FALSE (zombies work but not for Gaelan)
Somewhat belatedly, I recuse myself from CFJ 3793. Sorry. I thought I understood it at first, but the new arguments are just making my head spin and I can't figure out what the right answer should be. It does, however, seem to be fairly widely accepted that the auction rules are broken in _some_ way, even if we can't agree on exactly how, and so I suggest that perhaps our collective efforts would be better placed crafting a proposal to fix them, especially when the potential ramifications of this auction have already been self-ratified away. The one piece of vaguely helpful commentary I do have, in relation to these arguments from Alexis... > This very clearly excludes situations where the auctioneer cannot transfer > the lot at will from the scope of the automatic transfer. If an auction is > implicitly a mechanism, then we have effectively the following: > > 1. If the auctioneer can transfer it at will, it happens automatically. > 2. If the auctioneer can transfer it, but not at all, it does not happen > automatically. > 3. If the auctioneer cannot transfer it at all, it happens... automatically. > > This is rather absurd, and definitely not explicitly specified. > > See also the entirety of rule 2552, which allowed an auction to be > terminated if the lot cannot be transferred away. It clearly envisions a > world where something is up for auction but cannot be transferred, which > could not be the case if R2545 provides a fallback mechanism. ...is that whether or not an interpretation is "absurd" is specifically discounted from consideration when determining its validity, according to Rule 217. I don't think the rules' reference to _what would happen_ in a situation (here, the situation where it is IMPOSSIBLE to transfer a lot) is germane when considering whether or not that situation could ever actually arise. If zombie transferral is generally IMPOSSIBLE, then it is because of Alexis' other argument (that Rule 2545's opening paragraph is not sufficiently explicit to amount to the equivalent of a CAN directive). But I fear I lack the semiotic nous to properly evaluate it. -twg
Re: BUS: Re: [dicelog] Blackjack hands 2020-01-29
(sorry this is late! Laptop crashed while the compose window was open so it disappeared into my drafts and I thought I'd sent it already.) Warrigal wrote: > twg: 8, J. Total: 18. > twg may hit, stand, double down, or surrender. Recommended action: stand. Good call :P I stand. -twg
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
Alexis wrote: > We are also in the unfortunate situation that we do not know if twg > has won the game, as a result of the Lime Ribbon award. Ooh, good point! Convergence: I award myself a Lime Ribbon; I Raise a Banner. (Disclaimer: These actions may fail if I have already performed them.) -twg
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8308-8321
I vote as follows: > 8308& Falsifian3.0 Imposing order on the order Endorse Falsifian > 8309* Alexis 3.0 A Degree of Inefficiency AGAINST per Aris > 8310& Jason, Alexis3.0 Deputisation timeliness PRESENT. Seems inoffensive, but I haven't been paying attention to the discussion about why it's necessary. Also it's one of those proposals that requires me to painstakingly compare it with the SLR to figure out what it does, which always mildly irritates me. > 8311e twg, omd 1.0 Rewards Patch & Equitable Remedy FOR > 8312f Alexis 1.0 On Possibility AGAINST. I feel very uncomfortable about making this a blanket thing, especially the allowing people to act on behalf of nonhuman entities. I know leaving out a "by announcement" is a reasonably common mistake, but it's rarely complicated or time-consuming to fix, so I don't think the benefits outweigh the risks. > 8313* Alexis, G. 3.0 Support of the Person AGAINST per Falsifian - it should really be "less than or equal to N * O", not "less than N * O", I think. I know that's slightly more restrictive than AI-majority, but so is the current ruleset. > 8314e Aris 1.0 Finite Gifting Endorse Aris > 8315* Alexis 3.0 Clearer Resolutions Conditional: If a proposal has been submitted (since I cast this vote) that would amend Rule 2034 (Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges) by reintroducing the text "it had the number of voters indicated", then Endorse Alexis; otherwise AGAINST. (The point of that list item is to ensure we're clear about the quorum on the next proposal distribution so I don't think it should be removed, but if there is a good reason for doing so then lmk and I'll change my vote.) > 8316* Alexis 3.0 Zombie voting package AGAINST. The new paragraph to R683 needs to restrict default votes to eligible voters on the decision, not all entities. > 8317e Alexis 2.0 Zombie trade Endorse Alexis > 8318f Aris 1.0 Notorial Economy Endorse Aris > 8319l Aris 2.0 Sergeant-at-Arms Endorse Aris, with some amount of disappointment. Well spotted. > 8320l Aris 2.0 Promotorial Assignment Endorse Aris > 8321l Aris 2.0 Untying Quorum Endorse Aris I act on Bernie's behalf to endorse myself on each of the above. -twg
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: A quirk in the CFJ archives
Notice of Honour: +1 Gaelan (I knew what was going to happen and it was still one of the most hilarious things I've seen in Agora.) -1 Baron von Vaderham (presently designated karma source) -twg
[CFJ] Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
Jason wrote: > On 1/28/20 10:26 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote: > > > // > > ID: 8305 > > Title: Keeping Up With the Times > > Adoption index: 3.0 > > Author: Alexis > > Co-authors: > > > > Amend Rule 1367 (Degrees) by replacing "Bachelor" with "Baccalaureate" and > > by replacing "Master" with "Magisteriate". > > > > Rename every instance of the Patent Titles "Bachelor of Nomic" and "Master > > of Nomic" accordingly. > > // > > I award myself Indigo glitter. Sneaky! I like it. H. Arbitor, sorry to call two CFJs in such swift succession, but I don't particularly want this uncertainty lying around w/ all the stuff going on with glitter at the moment. CFJ, barring Jason: "Jason awarded emself Indigo Glitter today." (in contention is whether "renaming" a patent title means revoking it and awarding a new one; a TRUE verdict would also qualify Murphy and Alexis for Indigo) -twg
[CFJ] Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Notary] Weekly report
I wrote:
> Gaelan wrote:
> > NOTARY'S REPORT OF JANUARY 29 2020
>
> Ooh, just occurred to me you don't have a Ministry set! That probably
> wants doing. I reckon Economy probably fits best, since the Ministries
> rule specifically calls out contracts ("private enterprise") as falling
> under Economy.
>
> Only the ADoP can do that though, which might be tricky with Murphy
> absent (hope e's ok). Proposal, or is this not that urgent?
>
> -twg
CFJ: "In the attached message, I submitted a public petition to the
ADoP, as described by Rule 2143."
-twg
BUS: Re: OFF: [Notary] Weekly report
Gaelan wrote:
> NOTARY'S REPORT OF JANUARY 29 2020
Ooh, just occurred to me you don't have a Ministry set! That probably
wants doing. I reckon Economy probably fits best, since the Ministries
rule specifically calls out contracts ("private enterprise") as falling
under Economy.
Only the ADoP can do that though, which might be tricky with Murphy
absent (hope e's ok). Proposal, or is this not that urgent?
-twg
BUS: And in lighter news... [DoV]
Having achieved a full set of 16 Ribbons, including the new Emerald Ribbon, I Raise a Banner, causing me to win the game. -twg
BUS: CFJs 3800-3803 judged FALSE ("synonym" in R2221 means "exact synonym")
=== CFJ 3800 === It is POSSIBLE for a player, having given appropriate notice and received Agoran satisfaction, to clean Rule 2496 by replacing the word 'result' in the phrase 'times the adoption index of the result' with either of 'decision' or 'proposal', at eir option. === CFJ 3801 === It is POSSIBLE for a player, having given appropriate notice and received Agoran satisfaction, to clean Rule 2496 by replacing the word 'result' in the phrase 'times the adoption index of the result' with at least one of 'decision' or 'proposal'. === CFJ 3802 === If a judgment had ruled that the word 'result' in the phrase 'times the adoption index of the result' in Rule 2496 was properly interpreted as 'proposal', it would be POSSIBLE for a player, having given appropriate notice and received Agoran satisfaction, to clean that rule by replacing that word 'result' with 'proposal'. === CFJ 3803 === If a judgment had ruled that the word 'result' in the phrase 'times the adoption index of the result' in Rule 2496 was properly interpreted as 'proposal', it would be POSSIBLE for a player, having given appropriate notice and received Agoran satisfaction, to clean that rule by replacing that word 'result' with 'decision'. == Caller:Alexis Judge: twg == History: Called by Alexis: 25 Jan 2020 21:18 Assigned to twg: 26 Jan 2020 03:06-03:07 Judged FALSE by twg: (as of this message) == Caller's Arguments: [Arbitor's note: arguments pertain to CFJ statements 3800-3803] Note that the first two are not strictly parallel to the second two, as the first two are designed to avoid forcing the judge to interpret of Rule 2496, and allow a "either or, but I don't know which" judgment, while the latter two are predicated on an interpretation and consequently focus on specific replacements. A cleaning must, platonically, be limited in scope to fixes to spelling, grammar, and similar. One of the items in scope for a cleaning is "whether a synonym or abbreviation is used in place of a word or phrase". However, I note that there is no direct requirement that there be no semantic change introduced, other than by the fact that it must be a "correction". The rule as written refers to the adoption index of the result, but results (presumably synonymous with outcomes?) have no adoption index. It is clear, that the intended interpretation is the adoption index of either the proposal or the decision, but it is not entirely clear which one. At present, however, there are no effects that can change the AI of a decision, so it's a moot point, but it would become significant if there were. So, it seems clear that the rule is ambiguous as-is, and that it would be a correction to replace it with either "decision" or "proposal". Since there are only two reasonable interpretations of the rule, it must be the case that exactly one of these is a semantic change. The other would certainly be a correction, by clarifying the rule. Is the semantic change a correction as well? It would certainly resolve the ambiguity, so arguably it is. My gut tells me that it would be a correction as long as the rule was generally ambiguous; once precedent was established (and noting that, because precedent has a direct impact on the interpretation of a rule; a rule's interpretation may platonically change as a result of the creation of a precedent, even an incorrect one) it would no longer be (aside: this is a fascinating line of thinking I had not considered before about the question of platonic interpretation). I'd argue that "synonym" is the only ground of cleanliness under which the change could be made, so in order to be valid, it must be changing whether a synonym is used in case of a word or phrase. In this case, the change would ostensibly be to no longer use the synonym "result" in place of "decision" or "proposal", as the case may be. So what constitutes a synonym? If the ambiguity were already resolved in precedent, as in the last two CFJs, then we can argue that the words are synonymous in context, even if they aren't ordinarily. But would it be too much of a stretch to extend this argument to if, say, due to a splice error the rule read "the adoption index of the prosion"? Could "prosion", a non-word but something that could still be reasonably
BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
Jason Cobb wrote: > PROPOSAL 8291 (Interesting Chambers v3.1) > FOR (8): Alexis, Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, Gaelan, Jason, Rance, twg > AGAINST (0): > PRESENT (1): omd > BALLOTS: 9 > AI (F/A): 25/0 (AI=3.0) > OUTCOME: ADOPTED Thank you for your help, Bernie. I award Bernie a Red Ribbon and an Orange Ribbon. > PROPOSAL 8292 (Self-Ratification Simplification Act) > FOR (6): Alexis, Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, omd, twg > AGAINST (0): > PRESENT (3): Gaelan, Jason, Rance > BALLOTS: 9 > AI (F/A): 19/0 (AI=3.0) > OUTCOME: ADOPTED > PROPOSAL 8295 (Rewards Reform Act) > FOR (8): Alexis, Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, Gaelan, Jason, Rance, twg > AGAINST (1): omd > PRESENT (0): > BALLOTS: 9 > AI (F/A): 25/3 (AI=3.0) > OUTCOME: ADOPTED For Proposals 8291, 8292 and 8295, I award myself a Lime Ribbon. -twg
BUS: [Economy Proposal] Rewards Patch & Equitable Remedy
G. wrote in "Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307": > On 1/28/2020 8:16 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 1/28/20 11:12 PM, omd via agora-discussion wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 7:47 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business > >> wrote: > >>> I earn 5 coins for assessing a proposal. > >> You can't, because P8295 made it so the ADoP has to do this. (And is > >> also broken, so nobody can do it.) > > > > > > Well, dammit. > > > > double dammit just read further Oops. Sorry. In my defense, the first time omd pointed it out I thought there was no time pressure because I could fix it with a Patch, but y'all had to vote that one down. :P I submit the following proposal, and (informally) request expedited distribution: --- Title: Rewards Patch & Equitable Remedy Adoption index: 1.0 Author: twg Co-authors: omd Chamber: Economy Amend Rule 2496, "Rewards", by replacing "CAN once" with "CAN once by announcement". Amend Rule 2602, "Glitter", by replacing "CAN once" with "CAN once by announcement". For the purposes of this proposal, the "recession" is defined as the period of time starting at 03:00 am UTC on 29th January 2020 and ending the instant before the adoption of this proposal. For each time a player met a reward condition during the recession, grant that player the assets associated with the reward condition, or if e is no longer a player, grant the same assets to the Lost and Found Department. For each time a player was awarded Glitter during the recession, grant that player a quantity of coins determined in the manner specified by Rule 2602, or if e is no longer a player, grant the same quantity to the Lost and Found Department. [This ensures no loss of coins, but shifts the responsibility for evaluating the missed rewards onto the Treasuror. Which is fair enough because it's mostly my fault. I say "mostly" because nobody else caught it in drafting either.] --- -twg
BUS: Weekly maintenance
I expunge my blot. I earn 5 coins for this week's Treasuror report. I earn 5 coins for this week's Referee report. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Blackjack, anyone?
Warrigal wrote: > I intended to realize the infinite shoe I object, just in case. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3793 judged FALSE (zombies work but not for Gaelan)
Alexis wrote: > I think this needs to be addressed properly in the judgment. I intend, with > 2 support, to group-file a motion to reconsider CFJ 3793. > > I will likely have more argument on this but not at the moment, figure I > should get the intent going though. Aris wrote: > I support. I support, and do so. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Blackjack, anyone?
Matthew Berlin wrote: > If you publish a hash of the shoe beforehand, and the entire shoe > afterwards for verification of the hash, you might get more takers, I know next to nothing about blackjack, but that sounds like it might be difficult if the "shoe" is "infinite" as Warrigal says in eir pledge. And anyway, it's only two coins and promises to be, if not amusing, at least mildly diverting. I give 2 coins to Warrigal as a blackjack bet. (I might also need the rules explained to me.) -twg
Re: BUS: CFJ 3793 judged FALSE (zombies work but not for Gaelan)
I wrote: > === CFJ 3793 === > > Rance’s master switch is set to Gaelan. > > == > > Caller:Gaelan > > Judge: twg > Judgement: FALSE > > == I earn 5 coins for judging this CFJ. Blue Glitter: I earn 12 coins. -twg
BUS: CFJ 3793 judged FALSE (zombies work but not for Gaelan)
=== CFJ 3793 ===
Rance’s master switch is set to Gaelan.
==
Caller:Gaelan
Judge: twg
Judgement: FALSE
==
History:
Called by Gaelan: 16 Jan 2020 06:16 UTC
Assigned to twg: 22 Jan 2020 15:51 UTC
Judged FALSE by twg: (as of this message)
==
Caller's Arguments:
1885/9: For the purpose
of such a auction, to transfer a zombie to a player is to set that
zombie's master switch to that player.
2551/3: When [the bid is paid to the auctioneer],
if the auctioneer CAN transfer the items in that lot to that
winner at will, e immediately does so; otherwise, e SHALL do so in
a timely fashion.1
So, the question is: CAN Agora, as an autonomous entity, set a switch? I don’t
see any language that implies it can, but perhaps there’s an argument to be
made that Agora obviously is able to change its own state?
--
Gratuitous Arguments by G.:
The standing precedents are CFJs 3693-3694.
--
Gratuitous Arguments by Falsifian:
Jason Cobb pointed out Gaelan's 22-coin bid was NttPF [0], so e did
not win any lots in the auction, so this should be FALSE.
[0]
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-January/041890.html
--
Judge twg's Arguments:
Falsifian and Jason Cobb are perfectly correct; Gaelan's final bid on the
zombie auction in question was not among the three highest, so e did not
win any lot. (Because of eir phrasing, though, e did still transfer the
amount of eir "bid" to Agora. Sucks to be em.)
I judge this CFJ trivially FALSE.
However, it's worth considering the matter that the caller _intended_ to
inquire into. Is it generally POSSIBLE for players to flip master switches
as the result of a zombie auction?
As G. correctly points out, this exact question was the subject of CFJ
3694. Despite the complexity of the discussion surrounding that case, e
has kindly supplied us with the reasoning adopted by CFJ 3694's judge:
> The CFJ is FALSE, because a necessary implication of the Rules is that
> Agora CAN transfer a zombie pursuant to a properly initiated Rule 1885
> zombie auction.
>
> Under Rule 2545 (power=2), “An Auction is a way for entities to give
> away items in exchange for a currency.” By necessarily implication,
> if a Rule with high enough power authorizes some player to initiate an
> auction with a particular item as a lot, then that Rule also
> necessarily authorizes that player to initiate a process that would
> “give away [that] item[] in exchange for a currency.” That’s what an
> auction _is_ under the Rules.
>
> Under Rule 1885 (power=2), at the start of the month, “the Registrar
> CAN put [a] zombie [that meets certain conditions] (along with any
> other zombies that fulfill the same conditions) up for auction.” By
> necessary implication, read in conjunction with Rule 2545, that means
> that a zombie can be transferred pursuant to that auction. Otherwise
> it wouldn’t be an auction at all—a way of transferring an item for
> currency. It would be something else entirely.
>
> This interpretation is consistent with the best interests of the game
> and ordinary language. There’s no reason to adopt a contrary
> interpretation, which would break auctions and zombies.
Although unconventional, I do not find flaw with the judge's logic. By
defining an "Auction" as "a way for entities to give away items" (text
that is still present in the rule today), Rule 2545 ("Auctions")
effectively makes a blanket statement that entities CAN give away items
through auctions. Thus, the condition in Rule 2551 ("Auction End") that
"the auctioneer CAN transfer the items in that lot to that winner at will"
is always true (provided that the items are possessed by the auctioneer,
which is always the case with official zombie auctions).
However, it should be noted that the result of this wording is clearly
unintentional, as it might for example permit a player to auction even
_fixed_ assets, including eir own zombie(s), by means of Rule 2584 ("Free
Auctions"). This court therefore recommends that language be introduced to
Rule 2551 explicitly enabling Agora to transfer zombies, and that Rule
2545 be rephrased to remove its unfortunate permissiveness.
==
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [attn: ADoP] Whither the Agoran economy?
Alexis wrote: > On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 at 11:29, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business > wrote: > > > Cyan Glitter: I earn 8 coins. > > > > -twg > > I believe this fails as the current glitter value for cyan is 7. So it is. Bloody deregistrations. Cyan Glitter: I earn 7 coins. -twg
Re: BUS: [attn: ADoP] Whither the Agoran economy?
I wrote: > I intend, with 2 days' notice, to temporarily deputise for the ADoP to > end the uncontested election for Treasuror, thereby installing myself. Having given notice, I do so. I award myself an Emerald Ribbon. Cyan Glitter: I earn 8 coins. -twg
Re: BUS: CFJ 3792 followup
G. wrote: > Since that judge was me, a comment. There are actually two questions. > (1) Was is a report satisfying the requirement to publish all > information once per week, and (2) what was the actual, effective date > of the report (the backdate listed, or the datestamp on the message?) > From what I said last time, my judgement would be that (1) is fairly > trivial - it is a report, because regardless of how we treat the date > stamp, it's either (a) correct, or (b) a fairly trivial error well > within the sorts of error we accept in a report. So you might want to > ask question (2) which is the real meat of the matter - I won't ask it > in case you still want me to judge them both. Ah, OK, I'm clearly still misunderstanding something important about this. CFJ, barring Alexis: "If the report referenced by my previous CFJ were to ratify, its 'specified time' for the purposes of Rule 1551 would be 00:00 UTC on 2020-01-20". (if this is wrong, lmk and I'll retract and resubmit) Finally, of course, if you're particularly unwilling to judge it then feel free to ignore the "request" - was just under the impression that you were the authority on this stuff atm. > Also, I CoE the blot listings in the below-indicated report: it is > missing at least 1 person with a blot. (how to resolve the CoE relies > on the answer to question 2). I respond to the CoE by citing the CFJ I just called. (R2201 doesn't require me to select the _correct_ response, and this is far more convenient because it means the backdated report will never ratify by accident.) -twg
BUS: Income
I earn 5 coins for publishing this week's Referee report. Whichever one it actually was... -twg
Re: BUS: CFJ 3792 followup
I wrote to BUS at 16:44 UTC on 2020-01-24: > I impose Summary Judgement by levying a fine of 1 blot on myself (twg). > The specific reason for this fine is that it is setting up the > conditions for a CFJ. I wrote to OFF at 17:05 UTC on 2020-01-24: > > The Police Blotter (Referee's Weekly Report) > > > This report: > Published: 2020-01-24 > Accurate as of: 2020-01-20 00:00 > > Last report: > Published: 2020-01-14 > Accurate as of: (publication) > > (all times UTC) > > > BLOT HOLDINGS(self-ratifies) > > > BlotsPlayer > --- > 2 nch > > No fugitives exist. CFJ, barring Alexis: "I published a Referee report today." This CFJ is extremely similar to CFJ 3792, except without the technicality that caused it to be judged FALSE. I request it be assigned to the same judge. -twg
BUS: Re: OFF: Re: [Herald] Hear, hear!
G. wrote: > Having sufficient consent, I award twg the patent title Orator. Thank you. I'm honoured. Violet Glitter: I earn 9 coins. -twg
BUS: CFJ 3792 followup
I impose Summary Judgement by levying a fine of 1 blot on myself (twg). The specific reason for this fine is that it is setting up the conditions for a CFJ. -twg
Re: BUS: Cleaning
I wrote: > I intend w/o objection to clean R2160 by replacing "deputisiation" with > "deputisation". Having heard no objection, I do so. -twg
Re: BUS: [attn: ADoP] Whither the Agoran economy?
Falsifian wrote: > I resign as Treasuror. > > In case a future Treasuror is interested in continuing this, I'll note > that I've been archiving reports, and maintaining a "fresh.txt" > containing a potentially-fresher state, in a git repository in Agora's > GitHub project. I doubt anyone will want to follow my style exactly > (if at all), but to get a sense of how I've been doing it, here are > two example commits: > > https://github.com/AgoraNomic/Treasuror/commit/80136985a6ea7a326adecefde1e96f7916e0f264 > (simple update to fresh.txt) > > https://github.com/AgoraNomic/Treasuror/commit/2cf187438081e57abe29f2baeb5b8275233a637b > (add a weekly report) > > https://github.com/AgoraNomic/Treasuror/commit/fddf76e0f3e64d41f31cc789ef2e047570c5e501 > (update files to point point to the new weekly report) Understood. Thank you for your service! I'll have a look at your files and see if I can carry on a similar method. I intend, with 2 days' notice, to temporarily deputise for the ADoP to end the uncontested election for Treasuror, thereby installing myself. -twg
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8287-8307
I vote as follows: > IDAuthor(s)AITitle > --- > 8287 twg 2.0 Blot Stabilisation FOR. > 8288 omd 1.0 Glitteral Does not conflict with 8295 if adopted first; an improvement over the status quo even if 8295 doesn't pass. ENDORSE omd. > 8289 Alexis 1.0 You're Banned from the Theater AGAINST per G. > 8290 G. 3.0 More Headroom Does not meaningfully conflict with 8295; an improvement over the status quo even if 8295 doesn't pass. ENDORSE G. > 8291 Bernie, [1] 3.0 Interesting Chambers v3.1 FOR. > 8292 Bernie, twg 3.0 Self-Ratification Simplification Act FOR. > 8293 Bernie, twg 1.0 CFJ Bait FOR. > 8294 Bernie, twg 3.0 Authorial Intent PRESENT. As I said, this is mainly here to provoke discussion. (While I do in principle think the intent behind the text ought to be taken into consideration when interpreting it, I acknowledge this may not be the best way of enacting it.) > 8295 Bernie, twg, Alexis 3.0 Rewards Reform Act FOR. > 8296 Aris, G. 1.0 Divergence I'm a little unclear about some of the implications people have raised regarding historical convergences and would prefer to wait and see what others' consensus is. PRESENT. > 8297 Aris 2.1 Imminent Failure ENDORSE Aris. > 8298 Aris, [2]2.0 Administrative Adjudication v3 FOR. > 8299 Aris, G. 3.0 The Reset Button v2 Still doesn't address Jason Cobb's concerns about being used to modify rules; I know you said it should only be possible within an officer's domain, but (a) that seems to be only subjectively defined and (b) I'm not sure I like the idea of officers being able to make _any_ rule changes without a vote, even subject to restrictions. AGAINST. Sorry. > 8300 Aris 3.0 Patches This, on the other hand, seems a much better way of doing the same thing, as it doesn't change the rules themselves and (if my reading is correct) can be overridden by a CFJ. ENDORSE Aris. > 8301 Aris, Jason Cobb 3.0 Consolidated Regulatory Recordkeeping v2 Sure, if the Rulekeepor is OK with it. ENDORSE Jason Cobb. > 8302 Aris 1.5 Generic Petitions ENDORSE Aris. > 8303 Aris, [3]3.0 Contract Patency v3 Torn on this one as well; may come back to it later. PRESENT. > 8304 Bernie, twg, Jason Cobb 3.0 Rewards Reform Act - v1.1 Patch FOR. > 8305 Alexis 3.0 Keeping Up With the Times ENDORSE Alexis. > 8306 Gaelan 3.0 Deregistration AGAINST. > 8307 D. Margaux 3.0 Deregistration AGAINST. On each decision referenced above, I act on Bernie's behalf to vote to endorse myself. -twg
Re: BUS: Warranty
Aris wrote: > I warrant and affirm that I am not aware of any exploitable bug or > loophole in any of the proposals in the current distribution and that > I do not intend to use any of them as a part of a scam. I further > warrant and affirm that I am not making this statement in an attempt > to deflect attention from my other conduct or for any other reason > than to assure Agorans of the propriety of my actions and persuade > them to vote in favor of my proposals, given how many proposals have > been submitted in the current distribution. > > Twg, can we have the same warranty (in public, to be clear) from you? > I phrased it so that it works the same way even with your whole zombie > thing; so you don't need to change any words at all. :) If you don't, > I intend to vote against all of your proposals on a "better safe than > sorry" basis. Apologies for the distrust if you don't in fact have > anything malicious planned. I think your goal is laudable; and since all the proposals I've submitted would, in fact, all improve the game (in my opinion) if adopted, I do want on some level to give you the assurance you desire. But I feel quite strongly on principle that warranties against scams and loopholes should not be given on a blanket basis. I will set out why I believe this, in the hope of persuading you to agree. Although I understand and respect your personal dislike of scams and loopholes, I don't think it's possible to deny that they are an important and enjoyable part of the game for many people. As a general rule, Agoran society does not shun or ostracise perpetrators of scams, provided that they act responsibly and non-destructively; in fact, it honours them, with the patent title Scamster, which has been awarded several times in the past and indeed is currently singled out specifically as an "award" in Rule 2581. Recent scam attempts, successful or otherwise, have also all been treated more with interest than with antipathy, especially if they are novel or witty. Today (19th January), for example, Falsifian presented an attempt to declare apathy - a traditional target of scams. Nobody expressed eir disapproval, and indeed when e discovered that e had made a trivial mistake in eir attempt, and withdrew eir CFJ into the matter, another player resubmitted the CFJ, correcting the mistake and calling it "interesting". That player, as you may remember, was you. Another recent example I would like to discuss is the case of Proposal 8285, authored by Alexis, which contained a potential escalator scam (that might or might not have been intentional) pointed out by Jason Cobb. As I mentioned during its voting period, I strongly suspected that it contained a scam, but nevertheless initially voted FOR it because I couldn't find the scam upon examination. I believed that Alexis's skill at hiding eir scam, if it existed, was a sufficient achievement that e deserved its inclusion in the ruleset; and, based on eir behaviour during eir past successful scams, which turn up impressively frequently when browsing the mailing list archives, I trusted (and still trust) em not to unnecessarily wreak havoc on Agora if and when e is successful at perpetrating one. I don't think that my thought process here will be unusual or unrelatable to many Agorans (although I would be fascinated to find differently). Agora is built around textual literalism. Why should we stigmatise cleverly worded texts if they are used responsibly? "Responsibility" is perhaps a poorly descriptive term in the context of the perpetration of a scam, so let me explain what I mean. There are some parts of the game that I feel should not be considered socially acceptable targets of scams, for what I hope are obvious reasons. These include the historical records of ribbons, wins and patent titles, as well as the general health of Agora. This last is something rather harder to define, but I think you and most other players will understand broadly what I mean by it; I would consider something like the Annabel Crisis or last year's dependent action panic to be "unhealthy", although of course the latter was not an intentional scam from anybody. If you wish, I will warrant that, to the best of my knowledge, none of the proposals harm any of those things. I would not intentionally seek to harm them anyway, regardless of any pledge, warranty or other obligation, or absence thereof. What I will not do, barring sufficiently persuasive arguments to the contrary, is make a blanket statement that I am not planning or engaging in any scams or exploits. I don't want to end up in a situation where I am (or _anybody_ is) totally unable to take part in this part of the game, just because it is considered suspicious to not currently be under a pledge/warranty forbidding it, and I'm concerned that complying now with your request would lead Agora towards a social climate of that type. I acknowledge that my refusal may well cause you and others to be suspicious of my
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal dump
Jason Cobb wrote: > I don't think this is an actual requirement. According to Rule 2141, "a > rule [...] is always taking effect", which means that "before the end of > the next Agoran week" could be interpreted as always being in the > future, so the time limit for the requirement never ends. Hmm. The first part of the sentence is "Each time a player (fulfills a reward condition|is awarded a type of Glitter)", which establishes a clear basis for when the week in question is "next" from, so in the event of a CFJ I think common sense would be on my side. But I do see what you're getting at, and it would be good to have it specified explicitly. Sneaking in just before the distribution deadline, I act on Bernie's behalf to submit this proposal: Title: Rewards Reform Act - v1.1 Patch Adoption index: 2.0 Author: Bernie Co-authors: twg, Jason Cobb If the proposal titled "Rewards Reform Act" has not been adopted, this proposal has no effect. Amend Rule 1023, "Agoran Time", by inserting the following top-level list item before the one starting "2. Agoran epochs:", and renumbering the rest of the list as appropriate: 2. The phrase "in an officially timely fashion" means "before the end of the next Agoran week". This time period is set when the requirement is created (i.e. between 7 and 14 days before the period ends). Amend Rule 2496, "Rewards", by replacing "before the end of the next Agoran week" with "in an officially timely fashion". Amend Rule 2602, "Glitter", by replacing "before the end of the next Agoran week" with "in an officially timely fashion". -twg
BUS: Proposal dump
I cause Bernie to submit the following proposals: Title: Interesting Chambers v3.1 AI: 3.0 Author: Bernie Co-authors: Trigon, Aris, Gaelan, G., Jason Cobb, twg Enact a new Rule of Power 2.0, entitled "Ministries", with the following text: A Ministry is an entity defined as such by this rule. Each Ministry has a goal. The Ministries of Agora, and their goals, are as follows: A. Ministry of Justice: serve justice to rulebreakers B. Ministry of Efficiency: see official duties performed swiftly C. Ministry of Legislation: see votes cast on proposals D. Ministry of Participation: reward players for achievements E. Ministry of Economy: encourage economic activity and contracts Interest is an office switch, tracked by the ADoP, whose possible values are lists of ministries, defaulting to the empty list. The ADoP CAN flip an office's interest without objection. For each item of each office's interest, that office's holder's voting strength is increased by 2 on proposals whose chamber is set to that ministry. Enact a new Rule of Power 2.0, entitled "Proposal Classes", with the following text: Proposals created since the enactment of this rule have an untracked Class switch with possible values ordinary (the default) and democratic. When a proposal with an adoption index greater than 2.0 is created, its class becomes democratic. Any player CAN, with 2 Agoran consent, flip an ordinary proposal's class to democratic, provided that it is in the Proposal Pool or that there is an Agoran decision on its adoption whose voting period has not yet ended. Enact a new Rule of Power 2.0, entitled "Proposal Chambers", with the following text: Chamber is an untracked ordinary proposal switch whose possible values include unset (the default) and each of the ministries of Agora. A proposal's chamber SHOULD only be decided by which ministry's goals it effects to the greatest degree. Any player CAN, with 2 Agoran consent, flip the chamber of an ordinary proposal to any ministry, provided that it is in the Proposal Pool or that there is an Agoran decision on its adoption whose voting period has not yet ended. Amend Rule 1607, "Distribution", by changing "the text, author, and coauthors of the proposal" to "the text, author, coauthors, class and (if applicable) chamber of the proposal". Amend Rule 2350, "Proposals", by adding the following to the list: * A chamber to which the proposal shall be assigned upon its creation. Amend Rule 2422, "Voting Strength", by changing "between 0 and 5" to "between 0 and 15". // Move the PM's casting vote to the Speaker, since the PM already gets // all ministries: Amend Rule 2423, "First Among Equals", by removing the second paragraph. Amend Rule 103, "The Speaker", by changing "For an election of the Prime Minister, the Speaker" to "The Speaker". Set the ADoP's Interest to [Efficiency]. Set the Arbitor's Interest to [Justice]. Set the Assessor's Interest to [Efficiency, Legislation]. Set the Herald's Interest to [Participation]. Set the Prime Minister's Interest to [Justice, Efficiency, Legislation, Participation, Economy]. Set the Promotor's Interest to [Legislation]. Set the Referee's Interest to [Justice]. Set the Registrar's Interest to [Efficiency]. Set the Rulekeepor's Interest to [Legislation, Participation]. Set the Tailor's Interest to [Participation]. Set the Treasuror's Interest to [Economy, Economy]. // Some of the above have been slightly rejigged given the new // definition of Participation /* Treasuror is given Economy twice for balance reasons: * - It is a high-complexity office (was given Complexity=3 under *Politics), like Assessor and Rulekeepor; this makes the power *commensurate to the importance, and there is no ministry it really *fits under besides Economy * - It bumps up the number of voting increases issued for Economy *proposals; all other ministries have 2-3 excluding the PM. * Not just trying to give myself votes, I swear :P */ Title: Self-Ratification Simplification Act Adoption index: 3.0 Authors: Bernie Co-authors: twg /* I don't recall any instances in modern times where a CFJ has been * used to explicitly doubt a document, and the behaviour is * replicable by citations anyway. So let's get rid of it, as it makes * R2201 significantly longer and also gives it two lists with the * same numbering scheme (always a headache). * This also clarifies that non-players are able to issue CoEs - this * was already possible (and may be useful as a protection against * accidental deregistrations from incorrect Registrar reports) but * was a
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3784, 3785, and 3785.5 judged FALSE
Gaelan wrote: > Congratulations, this made me chuckle. I’d give you a karma for it, but > unfortunately I’ve already used my notice this week. On behalf of Bernie, Notice of Honour: +1 Aris (entertaining CFJ judgement) -1 Gaelan (improper budgeting of eir Notice of Honour allocation :P) -twg
Re: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction fix
G. wrote: > Heh. Deja vu all over again. > > So this whole issue was brought up in Jan 2019, and resulted in CFJs > 3693-3694. The Judge's full arguments (below) appeared only in > discussion, and there was a big thread (referenced below). The judge > of CFJ 3694 found that zombie auctions worked, but it was quite, er, > unique to agora reasoning. But the judgement wasn't appealed for > whatever reason. > > Then in June 2019 it was noticed again, and Falsifian proposed a > legislative fix. At that time, I mentioned "here's the court case" > and assembled it from the original discussion thread (that's the > message below). The legislative fix drafting was dropped (I don't > think because of the court case, it looks like the first drafts had > difficulty with the wording and new drafts weren't proposed). > > Now here we are a third time. Whatever we can say about CFJ 3694, the > judgement is suitably unintuitive such that almost no one reading the > rules without this precedent/context thinks that zombie auctions > actually work... Notice of Honour: +1 G. (digging up all this old information) -1 Baron von Vaderham (presently designated karma source) -twg
BUS: Re: DIS: [CFJ] Re: OFF: [Registrar] End of January zombie auction
Gaelan wrote: > CFJ: Rance’s master switch is set to Gaelan. I favour this CFJ, unless someone else who's already submitted arguments favours it more. -twg
BUS: Cleaning
I intend w/o objection to clean R2160 by replacing "deputisiation" with "deputisation". -twg
BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] End of January zombie auction
Falsifian wrote: > The January zombie auction has ended. > > On 2020-01-07 at 07:03 UTC, I initiated a zombie auction. It ended > 2020-01-14 at 07:03 UTC. Here are the lots, winners, and winning bids: > > Lot Winner Bid, in Coins > --- - - > o G. 111 > Bernie twg 50 > Rance Gaelan 22 > > Here are the bids that were not withdrawn: > > Amount (Coins) Bidder Time (UTC) > -- -- - > 111 G. 2020-01-13 22:48 > 50 twg 2020-01-13 22:10 > 22 Gaelan 2020-01-13 19:55 > 21 Jason Cobb 2020-01-13 19:45 > 15 Falsifian 2020-01-09 17:21 > 1 Alexis 2020-01-07 23:01 > > Agora is the Auctioneer in this auction. > > - Falsifian I pay 50 coins to Agora, iff doing so would indeed cause Agora to transfer Bernie to me. -twg
Re: BUS: [CFJ] Retroactive pledges (was Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Straw poll: officers responsible for rewards?)
Jason Cobb wrote: > I already tried this. > > Gratuitous: > > CFJ 3748 [0]. > > [0]: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3748 Awwwh. I withdraw my CFJ. -twg
BUS: [CFJ] Retroactive pledges (was Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Straw poll: officers responsible for rewards?)
I wrote: > I warrant that I did not intentionally include loopholes in any of the > proto-proposals I supplied in the referenced message. (Ribbons are > Serious Business.) Alexis wrote: > A warranty that you did not make any loopholes in a proto makes the > eventual proposal itself even more suspicious. ;) Don't worry, I intend to attach the same warranty to any future drafts or finalised versions. Here's something that just occurred to me, though - CFJ: "If I had intentionally included a loophole in one of the proto- proposals I circulated today, I would now be guilty of the Crime of Oathbreaking." IOW, does my warranty count as a pledge, even though it refers to an event in the past instead of the future? I believe my intent, and level of ambiguity, are not relevant because making a pledge is not a by- announcement action. If the judge rules FALSE, I request that e also rule on whether such a "retroactive pledge" could have been made by using different wording. -twg
BUS: Re: DIS: Straw poll: officers responsible for rewards?
I wrote: > Here's a proto... I warrant that I did not intentionally include loopholes in any of the proto-proposals I supplied in the referenced message. (Ribbons are Serious Business.) -twg
BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter
I wrote: > > The Police Blotter (Referee's Weekly Report) > > > Date of this report: 2020-01-14 > Date of last report: 2020-01-08 > (all times UTC) I earn 5 coins for this report. -twg
Re: BUS: finger-point
G. wrote: > I point my finger at nch for failure to publish a tailor's monthly report in > December. (2 missed months is a bit much). This infraction is not minor, but neither is it profitable or abusive. Therefore I levy a fine of 2 blots on nch for Tardiness. -twg
BUS: Tailor Election
I initiate an election for Tailor, becoming a candidate. Campaign speech: In addition to the Tailor's legislated duties, I will maintain a list of the current rewards associated with Rule 2602 (Glitter). An example of the format can be found in the report I published a moment ago. I earn 5 coins for the Tailor report in question. -twg
Re: BUS: Referee Election
Alexis wrote: > I initiate an election for Referee. I become a candidate. > > Campaign speech: I will use the power to impose Summary Judgement > capriciously and arbitrarily, however, not against anyone who votes for me. This fails; you are not the incumbent or the ADoP, so you require 2 support to initiate an election. But if you want a shot at it then I'm game. I initiate an election for Referee, becoming a candidate. Campaign speech: I will continue to not use the power to impose Summary Judgement capriciously or arbitrarily, and judge and sentence fairly to the best of my ability. -twg
Re: BUS: Seeking a new Treasuror
I wrote: > I throw my hat into the ring. Honestly expected someone to CFJ this, but oh well. Just in case it wasn't sufficient, I become a candidate for Treasuror. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] January Zombie Auction
Gaelan wrote: > I bid 20 coins. Jason Cobb wrote: > I bid 21 coins. Gaelan wrote: > I bid 22 coins. :| I bid 50 coins. -twg
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8280-8286
Jason Cobb wrote: > > 8285 Alexis 3.0 Line-Item Roulette > > AGAINST. This proposal does not secure specifications of indeterminacy, > so a power-0.1 could potentially tamper with higher-power rules by > specifying data the higher-powered rule depends on as indeterminate, or > even tamper with secured switches. Argh, well spotted. I originally considered voting against this despite its seeming harmlessness, based solely on my priors for Alexis's proposals being scams. Should've trusted my instincts. :P I change my vote on proposal 8285 to AGAINST. -twg
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8280-8286
I vote as follows: > ID Author(s)AITitle > --- > 8280 Murphy, Jason Cobb 3.0 Resolve the troubles v1.1 PRESENT per Gaelan > 8281 Gaelan 1.0 Nothing to see here, Rule 1030 v2 AGAINST per Alexis > 8282 Falsifian1.0 Let's do this the hard way v1.1 PRESENT per Gaelan > 8283 Alexis 3.0 Ex Post Ribbon Endorse Alexis > 8284 Alexis 3.0 Line-Item Power AGAINST > 8285 Alexis 3.0 Line-Item Roulette Endorse Alexis > 8286 Aris 1.0 I Forbid Vetos! Endorse Aris -twg
Re: BUS: Seeking a new Treasuror
Falsifian wrote: > I initiate an election for the office of Treasuror. > > This quarter is a bit busy for me. I am probably going to resign as > Treasuror in a week or two if nobody has already taken the office. I > plan to continue as Registrar. I might take up Treasuror again later > if it's available. I throw my hat into the ring. Election speech: With my previous experience in the Treasuror role I anticipate cultivation of a value-added strategy for client-centric deliverables, tackling transformational change by touching base to leverage synergistic relationships with diverse stakeholders. I'm aware I haven't been very active recently, but I hope to rectify that in the coming months. Fungibly. -twg
BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter
I wrote: > Date of this report: 2020-01-08 > Date of last report: 2019-12-04 > (all times UTC) I earn 5 coins for the referenced Referee weekly report. -twg
BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] January Zombie Auction
Falsifian wrote: > I initiate a zombie auction, with the following lots (each zombie a > separate lot) ordered as follows (highest-bid first): > > 1. o > 2. Bernie > 3. Rance > > Agora is the Auctioneer, and the Registrar is the Announcer. The > currency is Coins with a minimum bid of 1. I bid 20 coins. -twg
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8277-8279
Gaelan wrote:
> TTttPF
>
> Also, I create the following contract: {
> Any person may become a party of this contract to act on Gaelan’s behalf as
> described below.
>
> Any person may act on Gaelan’s behalf to perform a series of actions, subject
> to the following conditions:
> * Gaelan attempted to perform those exact actions (verbatim) in a message to
> a discussion forum
> * The message to the discussion forum occurred within the past 24 hours
> * Gaelan's message was clearly an attempt to perform actions by sending a
> message to a public forum (and, specifically, it was > not labelled as a
> draft of a later public action, such as a “proto” proposal)
> * No actions have been performed by Gaelan, or on eir behalf, after the
> message to the discussion forum
>
> Gaelan may terminate this contract at any time, by announcement.
> }
I join/agree to this contract.
-twg
BUS: [Proposal] Blot Stabilisation (was Re: DIS: ratifying honour etc.)
Aris wrote: > It sounds reasonable to me. Also, a reminder to everyone (well, mostly > the H. Herald and H. Referee) that it's a new quarter. Nobody's been impure for quite some time so it doesn't really make much difference over here. I submit this proposal: -- start of proposal -- Title: Blot Stabilisation Adoption index: 2.0 Author: twg Co-authors: /* Now that people can expunge each others' blots when they feel * an appropriate sentence has been served, blots don't tend to * stick around for more than a month or two, so there's not much * value in the quarterly blot decay. */ Amend Rule 2555, "Blots", by deleting the following paragraph: At the beginning of each quarter, half (rounded down) of each fugitive's blots are destroyed. -- end of proposal -- -twg
BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter
On Wednesday, December 4, 2019 2:16 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > Date of this report: 2019-12-04 > Date of last report: 2019-11-20 I earn 5 coins for publishing this Referee report. -twg
BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 8:25 PM, James Cook wrote: > 10Jacob Arduino CoE: Jacob Arduino has no coins because e is no longer a player. I intend without objection to declare apathy, specifying all players. -twg
BUS: ticking along
I expunge one of my blots. I vote to endorse Jason Cobb on proposal 8275. I vote to endorse Jason Cobb on proposal 8276. I earn 5 coins for publishing this week's Referee report. -twg
BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] November Zombie Auction
On Thursday, November 7, 2019 12:52 AM, James Cook wrote: > I initiate a zombie auction, with the following single lot: > > 1. Jacob Arduino I bid 1 coin. -twg
Re: BUS: Re: [Prime Minister] Political Season!
On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 9:06 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 7:28 AM Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu wrote: > > > On 11/3/2019 10:31 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > I initiate an election for Prime Minister. > > > > I nominate myself for P.M., for the sake of having a contested election, and > > I encourage other nominees. -G. > > I stand for PM, in the interests of having fun and because it's > basically a tradition that G. and I both run at this point. > > -Aris And my axe! Election speech: "CFJ: I am a candidate for Prime Minister." -twg
BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter
On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 11:08 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > Date of this report: 2019-11-05 > Date of last report: 2019-10-22 > (all times UTC) I earn 5 coins for this report. -twg
BUS: even tardier than expected
I impose Summary Judgement of 2 blots on myself for failing to judge CFJ 3776 in a timely fashion. -twg
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8253-8264
I vote as follows: > ID Author(s)AITitle > --- > 8253 Murphy, G., Jason Cobb 2.0 Clarify salary Endorse Murphy > 8254 Jason Cobb 3.0 Anything is POSSIBLE Endorse Jason Cobb > 8255 Jason Cobb 3.0 Possibly-Indeterminate Switches Endorse Jason Cobb > 8256 Murphy, Gaelan 2.0 Yes, Prime Minister Endorse Murphy > 8257 Murphy, Gaelan, G. 2.0 The Fat Director Endorse Murphy > 8258 Jason Cobb 2.0 Elections Fix Endorse Jason Cobb > 8259 Gaelan, Jason Cobb 1.0 [1] Endorse Gaelan > 8260 G. 1.0 The Low Zombie Endorse G. (believe ineffective) > 8261 G. 3.0 The High Zombie Endorse G. (believe effective) > 8262 G. 1.0 trick candles Endorse G. (believe ineffective) > 8263 nch 3.0 Persistent Endorse nch (believe effective) > 8264 nch 1.0 [2] AGAINST > 8265 twg, [3] 3.0 [4] FOR -twg
Re: BUS: List Cleaning
On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 6:46 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> with Agoran consent: enact the following Editorial Guideline: { Bulleted
> lists begin each item with “-“. }
>
> with Agoran consent: enact the following Editorial Guideline: { Bulleted
> lists begin each item with “*“. }
I mean, if we're going to be persnickety about punctuation, then I object to
these two intents because they each use two opening quote marks instead of one
opening quote mark and one closing quote mark...
-twg
