[@ais523] CFJs 4084, 4085 [Re: BUS: CFJ - 4st/apathy name clarifications (@Arbitor)]

[nix via agora-business]

On 5/27/24 10:52, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote:
> I CFJ: "Agora is a game of nomic", barring 4st

I number this CFJ 4084. I assign it to myself. I judge it IRRELEVANT.

> 
> I CFJ: "The CFJ above bars the player currently named 'apathy'"

I number this CFJ 4085. I assign it to ais523.

> I'll generally respect people's preferred name, but frivolous cases like
> these go beyond my etiquette. I don't want to have to bother with these
> silly games
Please don't make extra work for other people because you're mad at
someone else.

-- 
nix
Arbitor, Spendor

Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9114-9119

[nix via agora-business]

On 5/26/24 19:26, nix via agora-business wrote:
>> 9115~   snail   2.0   Lode Stone
> PRESENT; Is this intended to give you a discount on multiple stones at
> once? As written I think it does, which seems overpowered.

I change my vote on 9115 to AGAINST. As written it lets you transfer
immune stones. Needs to specify non-immune.

-- 
nix
Arbitor, Spendor

BUS: [@Spendor @Stonemason @Assessor] Spending and Wielding

[nix via agora-business]

(It's Monday morning in UTC, so all stones are 1 less than the listed
cost on the Stonemason report)

I pay 3 spendies to transfer the Protection Stone to myself.

I wield the protection stone, specifying the protection stone.

I pay 5 spendies to transfer the Recursion Stone to myself.

I pay 5 spendies to transfer the Power Stone to myself.

I pay 7 spendies to transfer the Radiance Stone to myself.

I wield the Radiance Stone.

I wield the Power Stone.

I wield the Recursion Stone as the Protection Stone, specifying the
Recursion Stone.

-- 
nix
Arbitor, Spendor

BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9114-9119

[nix via agora-business]

On 5/25/24 05:52, secretsnail9 via agora-official wrote:
> ID  Author(s)   AITitle
> ---
> 9114~   snail   2.0   Grind Stone

FOR. Sure, why not. Tho I kind of feel the Recursion stone should count,
and maybe the method for counting times should be different... Maybe it
would be sufficient to have wielded it 5 times in 5 quarters?

> 9115~   snail   2.0   Lode Stone

PRESENT; Is this intended to give you a discount on multiple stones at
once? As written I think it does, which seems overpowered.

> 9116~   snail, juan...[1]   1.0   A friendly game v2

PRESENT; I'll catch up on the discussion of this one another time.

> 9117~   Mischief1.0   Self-Elimination

PRESENT.

> 9118~   juniper 1.0   Recursion

AGAINST; I am against all proposals that use Spendies as a reward.

> 9119*   Mischief3.0   Say It Once Mk II

FOR

-- 
nix
Arbitor, Spendor

BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9120-9121

[nix via agora-business]

On 5/25/24 17:43, secretsnail9 via agora-official wrote:
> ID  Author(s)   AITitle
> ---
> 9120~   juniper 1.0   Labour Payment

AGAINST; I don't want to award spendies for any action whatsoever. It's
a fixed balance mechanic.

> 9121~   juniper, mqyhlkahu  1.1   More Rules, Less Complex

endorse Rulekeepor.

-- 
nix
Arbitor, Spendor

Re: BUS: (@Collector, @Spendor) teehee

[nix via agora-business]

On 5/15/24 01:59, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote:
> By announcement, I declare apathy as a recipient of a welcome package.

I'm counting this as not granting a Welcome Package.

I grant apathy a welcome package.

-- 
nix
Arbitor, Spendor

CFJ 4077 assigned to kiako [Re: OFF: CFJ 4077 assigned to Gaelan. [Re: [CFJ] Re: BUS: (@Notary, Arbitor) A Broken Promise]]

[nix via agora-business]

On 4/9/24 19:02, nix via agora-official wrote:
> On 4/7/24 13:18, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-business wrote:
>> CFJ: "There exists a tabled immature intent, sponsored by me, to Declare
>> Apathy."
> I number this CFJ 4077. I assign CFJ 4077 to Gaelan.

I recuse Gaelan from CFJ 4077 for lateness. I assign CFJ 4077 to kiako.

Gaelan, I have removed you from the list of judges. Let me know if you'd
like to be re-added.

-- 
nix
Arbitor, Spendor

CFJ 4083 assigned to nix [Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Geologist] (@ADoP) being responsible]

[nix via agora-business]

On 5/19/24 16:59, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote:
> I CFJ on the following statement, barring 4st: "In the message quoted in
> evidence, 4st deputised as Geologist to publish the Geologist's report."

I number this CFJ 4083. I assign CFJ 4083 to myself.

-- 
nix
Arbitor, Spendor

CFJ 4082 assigned to [Re: (@Arbitor) Re: BUS: (@Collector, @Spendor) teehee]

[nix via agora-business]

On 5/15/24 03:40, wunst via agora-business wrote:
> I CFJ: This action failed.

I number this CFJ 4082. I assign CFJ 4082 to ais523.

-- 
nix
Arbitor, Spendor

CFJs 4080 and 4081 assigned to snail. [Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Such Vile Calumny! (attn Arbitor)]

[nix via agora-business]

On 5/13/24 18:45, Joshua Boehme via agora-business wrote:
> I CFJ on the statement "Elysion is a fugitive of the old law"
> 
I number this CFJ 4080. I assign CFJ 4080 to snail.

> 
> I CFJ on the statement "Elysion is still a fugitive of the old law"

I number this CFJ 4081. I assign CFJ 4081 to snail.

(Both assigned to the same judge as they are closely related and one set
of arguments will likely answer both of them.)

Also, welcome back Elysion!

-- 
nix
Arbitor, Spendor

CFJ 4079 assigned to Murphy [Re: (@Arbitor, Stonemason) BUS: A Stone CFJ]

[nix via agora-business]

On 5/5/24 18:05, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
> CFJ: I own the Power Stone.
> 
> Arguments: The Anti-Equatorial Stone transfers the "mossiest non-immune
> stone", or a specified such stone if multiple non-immune stones are
> tied for mossiest. Currently, "mossiness" is not defined (with the only
> mention outside the Anti-Equatorial stone being in rule 2451, which
> allows the Prime Minister to increase a stone's mossiness by 2). Does
> that mean that all stones are currently tied for mossiest, on the basis
> that the Prime Minister has not used the power in question to make them
> mossier?

I assign this CFJ number 4079. I assign CFJ 4079 to Murphy.

-- 
nix
Arbitor, Spendor

@Illuminator Re: BUS: Even More Last Minute Spending (@Spendor)

[nix via agora-business]

On 4/30/24 18:33, nix via agora-business wrote:
> 10 Times, I pay 2 spendies to buy 1 radiance.
> 

Just tagging the Illuminator for eir records. No game actions.

-- 
nix
Arbitor, Spendor

BUS: Even More Last Minute Spending (@Spendor)

[nix via agora-business]

10 Times, I pay 2 spendies to buy 1 radiance.

-- 
nix
Arbitor, Spendor

BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9102-9110

[nix via agora-business]

On 4/29/24 21:16, secretsnail9 via agora-official wrote:
> ID  Author(s)   AITitle
> ---
> 9102~   juniper 1.0   An Overpowering Proposal

PRESENT; It seems harmless but I also don't think it adds much by
itself. I missed any convo on this tho.

> 9103~   juniper 1.0   Dictator Takes the Quorum

AGAINST; I think there's situations where this would actually be less
than their voting strength otherwise, assuming this works. The wording
doesn't match the normal process for modifying voting strength, so it
may also not work quite right. Additionally, this seems permanent since
9102 gives no way for Dictator status to be lost/removed. Not sure if
that part is intentional

> 9104~   snail   1.0   Stamp Raffle fix

PRESENT

> 9105~   snail   1.0   Stamp Raffle Repeal

FOR

> 9106*   snail...[1] 3.0   No Overpowered Deputizations

Present

> 9107~   Jaff2.0   Market Stone Pricing

FOR

> 9108~   nix, Janet  2.0   Less Smooth, More Immune

FOR

> 9109~   nix, Janet  2.0   Sortition

FOR. There's a couple typos but I don't think they change the function.

> 9110*   Janet   3.0   Delegate removal

FOR

-- 
nix
Arbitor, Spendor

BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9096-9101

[nix via agora-business]

On 4/21/24 15:07, secretsnail9 via agora-official wrote:
> 9096~   Janet   2.0   Stone cleanups v3

AGAINST; I didn't read or respond to this before I wrote "Less Smooth,
More Immune" but they conflict on Protection Stone and Hot Potato Stone
and I personally like my implementation. I humbly ask everyone to take a
look at "Less Smooth, More Immune" to decide which they like better.

(Janet - if this fails I owe you a couple spendies for the inconvenience).

> 9097*   Janet   3.0   Festival strength restrictions

FOR but I ask in the future that multiple sentence replacements get
indented sections instead of a single giant paragraph, for readability.

> 9098~   snail   1.0   Welcome Spendies

FOR

> 9099~   snail   2.0   Quantum Superstone

PRESENT; can't decide how I feel about this one.

> 9100~   snail   2.0   Spending Stone

AGAINST; This just gives more power to someone for already being ahead,
which I consider a "win more" mechanic and generally unfun game design
because it widens the gap between players for non skill or luck reasons.

> 9101~   snail   2.0   Unstable Stone

PRESENT.

-- 
nix
Arbitor, Spendor

BUS: [Proposal] Sortition

[nix via agora-business]

I submit the following proposal:

{
Title: Sortition
Author: nix
Co-Authors: Janet
AI: 2

[This proposal experiments with a much older idea of democracy -
sortition. In this process, instead of an election the office is
randomly assigned to a player from a pool of interested players.

In theory the advantages is that it avoids us becoming too reliant on a
specific officer or workflow, and gives everyone a chance to
participate.]

Enact a new Power = 2 rule titled "Sortition Procedure" with the
following text:

    At the beginning of each quarter, the ADoP CAN by announcement, and
    SHALL in a timely manner, initiate a sorition for each sortitioned
    office if e has not already done so for that office.
    
    When a sortition is initiated, it enters the lots period. Any player
    CAN become an option for that office during this period. If a person
    ceases to be a player during this period, e also ceases to be an
    option for each current sortition.
    
    Seven days after a sortition is initiated, its lots period ends. The
    ADoP CAN by announcement, and SHALL in a timely manner after a
    lots period ends, randomly select one of the options for that
    office. When e does so, that player becomes the officeholder for
    that office.

Amend R1006 (Offices) by replacing:

    An imposed office is an office described as such by the rule
    defining it. All others are elected.

with:

    Imposed offices and sortitioned are offices described as such by the
    rules that define them. All other offices are elected

Amend R2683 (The Boulder) by replacing "The Absurdor is an office" with
"The Absurdor is a sortitioned office".

Amend R2616 (The Webmastor) by replacing "The Webmastor is an office"
with "The Webmastor is a sortitioned office".

Amend R2659 (Stamps) by replacing "The Collector is an office" with "The
Collector is a sortitioned office".

Amend R2685 (Crystals) by replacing "The Geologist is an office" with
"The Geologist is a sortitioned office".

Amend R2640 (Stones) by replacing "The Stonemason is an office" with
"The Stonemason is a sortitioned office".

Amend R2656 (Radiance) by replacing "The Illuminator is an office" with
"The Illuminator is a sortitioned office".

Amend R2690 (Spendies) by replacing "The Spendor is an office" with "The
Spendor is a sortitioned office".
}

-- 
nix
Arbitor, Spendor

BUS: [Proposal] Less Smooth, More Immune

[nix via agora-business]

I submit the following proposal:

{
Title: Less Smooth, More Immune
AI: 2.0
Author: nix
Co-authors: Janet

[The overhaul spendies did to stones left two major stubs. The first is
references to smoothness, a removed mechanic. This will simply remove
those references.

The second leftover is immunity. It no longer means anything, but some
stones reference it. This adds immunity back, in a way balanced with
the current mechanics.]

Amend R2640 (Stones) by removing "(ii) The smoothness of the stone,
which is a non-negative integer;", replacing "(iii)" with "(ii)",
replacing "(iv)" with "(iii)", and appending, to the end, the following
paragraph:

    A stone is immune if and only if a rule of power 2 or more says it
    is immune; otherwise it is non-immune.

Amend R2642 (Stone Cost) by replacing "to transfer a specified stone"
with "to transfer a specified non-immune stone".

Amend R2645 (The Stones) by replacing every instance of "(weekly, X)",
where X is a number, with "(weekly)".
    
Amend R2645 (The Stones) by replacing every instance of "(monthly, X)",
where X is a number, with "(monthly)";

Amend R2645 (The Stones) by replacing:

    - Protection Stone (monthly): When wielded, a specified stone is
  granted immunity.
    
with:
    
    - Protection Stone (monthly): When wielded, specify a stone. The
  stone most recently specified when wielding the Protection Stone
  is immune.

Amedn R2645 (The Stones) by replacing:
    
    - Hot Potato Stone (weekly): When this stone is wielded, the wielder
  specifies an eligible player and gains 8 radiance. The stone is
  transferred to the eligible player. An eligible player is one who
  has not owned this stone since the last time Agora owned it. If
  this stone is not owned by Agora, a player CANNOT otherwise
  transfer it, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. This stone is
  immune if 3 or more players have wielded it since the most recent
  collection notice.
  
with:

    - Hot Potato Stone (weekly): When this stone is wielded, the wielder
  specifies an eligible player and gains 8 radiance. The stone is
  transferred to the eligible player. An eligible player is one who
  has not owned this stone since the last time it was transferred
  without being wielded. If this stone has been wielded at least
  once in the last 15 days, it is immune.
}

-- 
nix
Arbitor, Spendor

BUS: @Notary Stamps for Spendies

[nix via agora-business]

Six times I grant the library a promise titled "stamps for spendies"
with the following text:

{
Cashing conditions:
* Nix has at least 3 spendies.
* It is before May 1st, 2024.
* The bearer has, in the same message, cashed at most X-1 promises
titled "stamps for spendies", where X is the number of nix stamps the
bearer has transferred to nix in the same message.

Text:
I transfer 3 spendies to the bearer.
}

-- 
nix
Arbitor, Spendor

BUS: @Geologist A Transfer

[nix via agora-business]

I transfer crystal 2675 to snail.

-- 
nix
Arbitor, Spendor

BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9087-9095

[nix via agora-business]

On 4/13/24 20:44, secretsnail9 via agora-official wrote:
> ID  Author(s)   AITitle
> ---
> 9087~   Janet   1.0   A repeal

FOR

> 9088~   nix... [1]  2.0   Spendie Fixie

FOR

> 9089~   Janet   1.0   Who are you, again, again?

FOR

> 9090~   R. Lee  1.0   More instability so crystals can
> actually change hands

PRESENT

> 9091~   Janet, Aris 1.0   Welcome package fix, again, again

PRESENT

> 9092~   ais523  2.0   Paying your time

FOR, tho I agree that there should be a free (slower) option as well.

> 9093~   ais523  2.0   Stamp down on crime

PRESENT. It's interesting, but I have mixed feelings on creating the
stamp that way, and it's got the same problem as 9092. I'd rather maybe
transfer a specified existing stamp from the target.

> 9094~   snail, R. Lee   1.0   More instability with a hyphen

PRESENT

> 9095~   snail   1.0   Spendy Sizing

PRESENT

-- 
nix
Arbitor

BUS: [Proposal] Spendie Fixie

[nix via agora-business]

I submit the following proposal:

{
Title: Spendie Fixie
AI: 2.0
Author: nix
Co-Authors: Murphy, ais523, Janet

[Spendies v1.1 both failed to repeal R2643 and may have accidentally
repealed 2642. This proposal fixes both of those.]

Reenact R2642 (Stone Cost) with a Power of 2 and the full text:

    Stone Cost is a Stone switch with values of non-negative integers
    and a default of 10. Stone Cost is tracked by the Stonemason.

    Any player CAN pay a fee of X Spendies to transfer a specified stone
    to emself, where X is the current Stone Cost of the specified stone.

    When a stone is transferred, its Stone Cost is set to the default.
    At the beginning of every week, the Stone Cost for each stone is
    reduced by 1, to a minimum of 0.

[If the rule is repealed, this brings it back. If the rule isn't
repealed, it does nothing.]

Repeal R2643 (Collecting Stones).

If no player has any Spendies, grant each player 20 Spendies.

[Get Spendies running properly if they aren't already.]
}

-- 
nix
Arbitor

Re: BUS: [EMERGENCY] Spendy Funding

[nix via agora-business]

On 4/7/24 19:50, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote:
> I respond to this petition as follows.
> 
> I intend, with 3 Agoran Consent and in an emergency message, to enact the
> following Emergency Regulation:
> 
> {
> 
> On the beginning of the 14th of April, 2024, each player is granted 20
> spendies.
> 
> }
> 
> This should jumpstart the economy. If there is any issue with this, please
> object.

I support

-- 
nix
Arbitor

BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 4056 Recused from @Gaelan and assigned to @Janet

[nix via agora-business]

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.

-- 
nix
Arbitor

BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9073-9086

[nix via agora-business]

On 3/25/24 17:49, secretsnail9 via agora-official wrote:
> ID  Author(s)   AITitle
> ---
> 9073~   Kate, Gaelan1.0   In case of unexpected nonplayerhood

FOR

> 9074*   Janet   3.0   Close enough

FOR

> 9075*   nix, Janet, kiako   3.0   No Hidden Ownership Restrictions

FOR

> 9076*   nix 3.0   FUNgibility

FOR

> 9077~   snail   1.0   Less Fragile Crystals

PRESENT

> 9078~   Janet   1.0   Empire fixes

PRESENT

> 9079~   nix, Janet, kiako   2.0   Spendies v1.1

FOR

> 9080~   Gaelan, Kate1.0   One from the archives

FOR

> 9081~   Gaelan  2.0   Don't humiliate the recently departed

PRESENT

> 9082~   Gaelan  1.7   yes, yes, I got the memo

PRESENT

> 9083*   Janet   3.0   SLR ratification 2023-12-31

FOR

> 9084~   kiako   2.0   Oneironauts in the Ocean

FOR tho this will do nothing if Spendies passes.

> 9085~   ais523  1.0   Fix truthfulness loophole

FOR

> 9086~   R. Lee  1.0   Trimming the most useless rule in the
> ruleset

PRESENT

-- 
nix
Arbitor

Re: OFF: Re: Assignment of CFJ 4069 to 4st [Re: BUS: Overly Effective Identity Theft Protection, Or, Is There A Rule 105]

[nix via agora-business]

On 3/25/24 10:37, nix via agora-official wrote:
> On 3/11/24 17:52, nix via agora-business wrote:
>> On 3/11/24 17:41, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
>>> CFJ: There exists a rule 105.
>> I number this CFJ 4069. I assign CFJ 4069 to 4st.
>>
> This has since been recused. I assign CFJ 4069 to ais423.

If CFJ 4069 is unassigned, I assign it to ais523.

-- 
nix
Arbitor

BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 4070 judged DISMISS

[nix via agora-business]

On 3/11/24 17:53, nix via agora-business wrote:
> On 3/11/24 17:46, nix via agora-business wrote:
>> I CFJ: This CFJ exists.
> If this CFJ exists, I number it 4070. If CFJ 4070 exists, I assign it to
> snail.

All of the following actions are conditional on CFJ 4070 existing. I
don't believe it does, but I want to be complete:

I recuse snail from CFJ 4070 for violating a timelimit to judge it.

I assign CFJ 4070 to myself.

I judge CFJ 4070 DISMISS. It is largely irrelevant if this is true or
not, and at least one other CFJ (4071) indicates it doesn't exist at
all, which makes its judgment even more irrelevant.

-- 
nix
Arbitor

BUS: [Proposal] Spendies

[nix via agora-business]

Below is my spendies proposal. Some of the changes from the proto are
outlined in that thread. The big change is lowering the number from 100
to 20, and adjusting the costs of things to match. This was based on a
suggestion from kiako to encourage less round numbers to be used, which
may encourage more trading.

I submit the following proposal:

{
Title: Spendies v1.1
Author: nix
Co-Authors: Janet, kiako
AI: 2

[Spendies are simple. We all start with the same amount every month,
and if you don't use them you lose them. You can transfer them, put
them in contracts, etc. But they will go away. What's important is what
you do with them in that month.]

Enact a new (Power=1) rule titled Spendies with the text:

    Spendies are a currency ownable by players and contracts. Spendies
    are tracked by the Spendor in eir weekly report.
    
    At the end of each month, all Spendies are destroyed. At the
    beginning of each month, every player is granted 20 Spendies.
    
[Quick compatibility with another proposal]

If a proposal titled "FUNgibility" and authored by nix has been adopted
within the last 90 days, amend the rule titled "Spendies" to replace
"currency" with "fungible liquid asset".

[Delete dream of wandering.]

Repeal R2675 (Dream of Wandering).

[Below stones are simplified, similarly to the stamp specialization
proposal I made previously. You simply buy them for a cost that
decreases every month while the stone has the same owner.]

Amend R2640 (Stones) by replacing:

    A stone is a unique indestructible liquid asset
    
with:

    A stone is a unique indestructible fixed asset
    
and deleting its last two paragraphs.

Amend R2641 (Wielding Stones) by replacing:

    While a stone is hot, it is IMPOSSIBLE to wield it or to transfer it
    by announcement.
  
with:

    While a stone is hot, it is IMPOSSIBLE to wield it.

Retitle R2642 (Gathering Stones) to "Stone Cost" and then amend R2642 to
read in full:

    Stone Cost is a Stone switch with values of non-negative integers
    and a default of 10. Stone Cost is tracked by the Stonemason.
    
    Any player CAN pay a fee of X Spendies to transfer a specified stone
    to emself, where X is the current Stone Cost of the specified stone.
    
    When a stone is transferred, its Stone Cost is set to the default.
    At the beginning of every week, the Stone Cost for each stone is
    reduced by 1, to a minimum of 0.
    
Repeal R2642 (Gathering Stones).

[Similarly, let's include stamps. Remember Dreams are gone, so this is
now the primary way to get new stamps. Use Spendies to get stamps from
L, or mint more of your own. There's some modifications to the cost
to account for scale, which also discourages timing scams somewhat.]

Amend R2659 (Stamps) by appending the following paragraphs:

    Any player CAN pay a fee of 5 Spendies to grant emself X stamps of
    eir own type. When less than 8 Stamps of eir type exist, X is 2.
    When 8 to 15 Stamps of eir type exist, X is 1. When 16 or more
    stamps of eir type exist, X is 0.
    
    Any player CAN pay a fee of 5 + (X) Spendies to transfer a
    specified stamp from the L to emself. X is equal to the number of
    times e has already done so in the current month.

[Finally, you can buy some radiance, tho the cost is fairly high. Might
push you across the finish line tho, or at least give a use for some
spare Spendies.]

Amend R2656 (Radiance) by appending the following paragraph:

    Any player CAN increase eir radiance by 1 by paying a fee of 2
    Spendies.
}

-- 
nix
Arbitor

BUS: [Proposal] FUNgibility

[nix via agora-business]

I submit the following proposal:

{
Title: FUNgibility
Author: nix
Co-Authors:
AI: 3

[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.]

Retitle R2578 (Currencies) to "Fungibility"

Amend R2578 to read in full:

    A fungible asset is one where two instances of it are considered
    equivalent if they have the same owner, for the purposes of
    specification, granting, and transferring. The total amount of a
    fungible asset that an entity owns is also know as that entities
    "balance" of that asset.
    
Amend R2659 (Stamps) by replacing:

    Stamps of a given type are a currency.

with:

    Stamps of a given type are fungible.
    
Amend R2555 (Blots) by replacing:
    
    Blots are an indestructible fixed currency
    
with:

    Blots are an indestructible fixed fungible asset
}

-- 
nix
Arbitor

BUS: [Proposal] No Hidden Ownership Restrictions

[nix via agora-business]

I submit the following proposal:

{
Title: No Hidden Ownership Restrictions
Author: nix
Co-Authors: Janet, kiako
AI: 3

[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 document may
    modify this.
  
with:
  
    An asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an entity unless its
    backing document specifies that entity can own it. If an asset's
    backing document is otherwise silent on which entities can own it,
    then it can be owned by Agora, players, and contracts.
    
Amend R2659 (Stamps) by replacing:

    Stamps are a category of asset ownable by players .
    
with:

    Stamps are a category of asset ownable by players and Agora.
}

-- 
nix
Arbitor

BUS: Calling a CFJ, and Assigning it (to kiako)

[nix via agora-business]

CFJ: Agora owns at least 1 stamp

Arguments:
{
Earlier this week, Mercury attempted to pay a fee of a stamp to Agora to
join the raffle, as described in R2687.

However, stamps aren't ownable by Agora. Their definition only lists
players (R2659). R2576 also allows them (and every asset), to be owned
by the L

I believe that Mercury stamp is either still in Mercury's possession, or
the L And I believe the raffle just doesn't work correctly.
}

As Arbitor, I number this CFJ 4074. I assign CFJ 4074 to kiako.

-- 
nix

BUS: CFJ 4072 Judged TRUE

[nix via agora-business]

Text of CFJ 4072:

    There exists an entity that is a Rule with ID number 2687.

The argument made here boils down to this:
* Since 2014, R105 has required rule changes to specify their method in
  advance to be successful, AND
* The boilerplate used for most (maybe all?) distributions since then
  is older than that requirement, and does not specify the method of
  the rule changes, THEREFORE
* None of the proposals distributed since 2014 with that text have
  successfully caused a rule change (this may mean *all* proposals since
  2014).

To me, this logic flows. What therefore needs to be investigated is
whether the first two points are true. Let's start with the first one.

Rule 105 requires:

    [...] an unambiguous and clear specification of the method to be
    used for changing the rule, at least 4 days and no more than 60 days
    before it would otherwise take effect.
    
This requirement was put into place by proposal 7710, which was adopted
on November 2nd, 2014 with 9 votes for (including myself, incidentally)
and 2 votes against [0].

Thus, the first point seems to pretty clearly be true. What to explore
next then, is whether the method is specified clearly and unambiguously.

What is the method for a rule change in the proposal process? This
process is probably Agora's most complex, and nothing in the rules
clearly outlines the method. Two CFJs from 2009, 2427 and 2428, come
pretty close to asking and answering this question [1]. Essentially,
they conclude that the proposal "taking effect" is the mechanism. These
CFJs, however, predate the current text so should be taken with a grain
of salt.

Since "what is the method that needs to be specified" is unanswered in
precedent and rules, I asked players (the "common sense" perspective).
I received several answers [2-6] including "rule 105" [2], "taking
effect and being adopted" [3] and two votes for "by proposal" [4,5]

Gaelan, in arguing for "by proposal" notes that R2575/3 contains this
phrase:

    The holder CANNOT be changed except without objection or by
    proposal.
    
"Without Objection" is a well-established method, and "by proposal" is
being used in exactly the same way in the same sentence. This seems like
compelling evidence.

Further, the following text was used to distribute P9052 (the specific
proposal being questioned by the CFJ) [6]:

    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).

This formulation unambiguously and clearly specifies that these are
proposals being voted on, which is a pretty clear line to "by proposal".

This exact formation has also been used continuously since June 21st,
2020 [7]. It has been used by at least three different promotors, and by
a very rough count more than 50 times. Something very similar to this
formulation has been used since before P7710 in 2014, and the caller
makes no arguments that something key to success has changed in the text
at any point in time. This is an *extremely* powerful argument for
tradition.

Given that agoran tradition has suggested that this formulation works
for at least 4 years and perhaps more than a decade, that no previous
CFJ has raised any concerns about this (despite many CFJs scrutinizing
Rules 105 and 106), and that "by proposal" is established in at least
one other rule as a recognizable method, I judge this CFJ TRUE.

[0]
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2014-November/010891.html
[1]
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2009-March/018662.html
and
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2009-March/018663.html
[2]
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2024-March/063900.html
[3]
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2024-March/063902.html
[4]
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2024-March/063901.html
[5]
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2024-March/063904.html
[6]
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2024-January/017569.html

-- 
nix

BUS: [Arbitor] Judgment Reminder @Kate @Janet @Murphy @Gaelan

[nix via agora-business]

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

[Arbitor] CFJ 4056 assigned to @Gaelan [Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) Recusal - CFJ 4056]

[nix via agora-business]

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.

-- 
nix

[Arbitor] @Yachay Re: (@arbitor, @referee) Re: BUS: A lie

[nix via agora-business]

On 3/12/24 02:51, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote:
> The quoted message contains a game action.

I number this CFJ 4073. I assign CFJ 4073 to Yachay.

-- 
nix

[Arbitor] Assignment of CFJ 4072 to nix [Re: BUS: [CFJ] Another R105 CFJ]

[nix via agora-business]

On 3/11/24 19:16, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> I CFJ: "There exists an entity that is a Rule with ID number 2687."

I number this CFJ 4072. Unfortunately, I assign CFJ 4072 to nix.

-- 
nix

[Arbitor] Assignment of CFJ 4071 to ais523 [Re: BUS: A Silly Little Message]

[nix via agora-business]

On 3/11/24 17:47, nix via agora-business wrote:
> I CFJ: The quotes message contains at least one game action.

I number this CFJ 4071. I assign CFJ 4071 to ais523.

-- 
nix

Assignment? of CFJ 4070 to snail [Re: BUS: A Silly Little Message]

[nix via agora-business]

On 3/11/24 17:46, nix via agora-business wrote:
> I CFJ: This CFJ exists.

If this CFJ exists, I number it 4070. If CFJ 4070 exists, I assign it to
snail.

-- 
nix

Assignment of CFJ 4069 to 4st [Re: BUS: Overly Effective Identity Theft Protection, Or, Is There A Rule 105]

[nix via agora-business]

On 3/11/24 17:41, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
> CFJ: There exists a rule 105.

I number this CFJ 4069. I assign CFJ 4069 to 4st.

-- 
nix

Re: BUS: A Silly Little Message

[nix via agora-business]

On 3/11/24 17:46, nix via agora-business wrote:
> This email contains no game actions.
> 
> I CFJ: This CFJ exists.
> 

I CFJ: The quotes message contains at least one game action.

-- 
nix

BUS: A Silly Little Message

[nix via agora-business]

This email contains no game actions.

I CFJ: This CFJ exists.

-- 
nix

[Arbitor] CFJ 4057 assigned to Kate [Re: DIS: Re: (@Arbitor) Re: BUS: [Arbitor] New Arbitor in Town]

[nix via agora-business]

On 3/9/24 14:10, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 3/9/24 12:41, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
>> On Sat, 2024-03-09 at 12:33 -0600, nix via agora-business wrote:
>>> I assign CFJ 4057 to ais523.
>>> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg45651.html
>>
>> I recuse myself from this CFJ. It depends on events that happened on a
>> mailing list that I was never subscribed to, and most of the messages
>> of which I have never read, so I would have to do an excessive amount
>> of catching up in order to be able to make an informed judgement.
>>
> 
> 
> Noted in the weekly that just went out. I'll wait 24 hours for someone
> to express interest before randomly re-assigning.
> 
> Fair warning: If nobody shows interesting in working these out, I may
> accept them and judge them INSUFFICIENT.

I assign CFJ 4057 to Kate.

I realize that Kate has a strong incentive to find TRUE. But I also
think that, since other players have a strong incentive for FALSE, this
will both encourage Kate to get it done AND encourage em to come up with
good arguments. Note that Murphy is also currently ruling on eir own
possible victory (in CFJ 4059), and Janet is covering the other case
(CFJ 4058), so hopefully we end up with three lines of argumentation we
can use to tease out the final truth.

-- 
nix

CFJ 4061 Judged FALSE [Re: BUS: NOTICE OF NO CONFIDENCE: wait what?]

[nix via agora-business]

On 1/1/24 16:16, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
> 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

I judge CFJ 4061 FALSE.

The situation of multiple mechanisms listed for one action is already
discussed at length in the ruling of CFJ 4008 [0] (thanks to ais523 for
pointing that precedent out), and I find the arguments therein
compelling. However, that CFJ covers a slightly different situation, and
thus it's worth examining this one in specific.

The argument by the caller appears to be that the sentence should be
parsed as:

[[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.]

In this parsing, "with Agoran consent" is part of the action, not a
method. The rub here is that this is of course normally a method in its
own right. This reading lets you skip the requirements of one of the
methods.

However, I think an alternative, reading is as follows:

[[Any player can cause the office of Prime Minister to become vacant
]with Agoran consent [AND] by publishing a message with the character
string "MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE" in the subject line.]

In this reading, there is an implied union of the two mechanisms. That
is to say, both have to be satisfied. I think this is the more common
sense reading, and very likely the intended one.

This isn't to deny that Gaelan's reading is plausible based on the
wording, but I think that both readings are plausible and one is much
more clearly the intended. This could be disambiguated with different
phrasing towards either one, and I would recommend that it is by anyone
that's unsatisfied with this ruling.

[0] https://agoranomic.org/cases/?4008

-- 
nix

[Arbitor] @ais523 Re: BUS: (@Collector) So welcome

[nix via agora-business]

On 3/9/24 18:51, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote:
> CFJ: snail was granted a stamp in this message.

I number this CFJ 4068. I assign CFJ 4068 to ais523.

-- 
nix

BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Weekly Report

[nix via agora-business]

On 3/9/24 13:55, nix via agora-official wrote:
> Below is the Arbitor's weekly report.

CoE: 4054 is missing from "Recent Assignments" and "Open Cases". Snail
is missing from the list of "Interested Judges". Will submit a fixed
report after a few hours, to give opportunity for other CoEs.

-- 
nix

[Arbitor] @kiako Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering

[nix via agora-business]

On 3/5/24 09:59, Aris via agora-business wrote:
> I disagree with that precedent. A question is not a statement; Rule 991
> *requires* a statement. Accordingly, I CFJ, barring LegallyBearded:
> LegallyBearded has successfully called a CFJ with substantially the text 'Does
> "granting" an asset cause it to be received?'.

I number this CFJ 4067. I assign CFJ 4067 to kiako.

-- 
nix

[Arbitor] @Yachay Re: BUS: Registering

[nix via agora-business]

On 3/4/24 22:37, Aris via agora-business wrote:
> I CFJ, barring LegallyBearded: In the above message, LegallyBearded
> successfully granted emself 52 welcome packages.

I number this CFJ 4066. I assign CFJ 4066 to Yachay.

-- 
nix

[Arbitor] @4st Re: BUS: Registering

[nix via agora-business]

On 3/4/24 22:32, Rowan Evans via agora-business wrote:
> CFJ
> Does "granting" an asset cause it to be received?

I number this CFJ 4065. I assign CFJ 4065 to 4st.

-- 
nix
Arbitor

BUS: [Arbitor] Re: Re: ѕёѦѤ ѦѯќѤѦі (ѯѴњѩћѰ ђѨѯ ѕёѪѐ ѥѰ)

[nix via agora-business]

On 3/4/24 12:28, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote:
> I CFJ: Goren has created a contract in that message which grants Yachay
> some sort of agency over their Stamps.

I number this CFJ 4064. I assign it to myself.

I judge CFJ 4064 FALSE. Arguments:

There is no evidence that Goren made any contract anywhere. The quoted
message from Goren was likely to obfuscated to do anything, but when
decoded it appears to be apathy attempt, not a contract.

-- 
nix

[Arbitor] @Kate Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 9053-9057 [attn. Arbitor]

[nix via agora-business]

On 2/11/24 14:36, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> I CFJ, barring Maloney: "Proposal 9055, as part of its effect, enacted a
> rule."

I number this CFJ 4063. I assign CFJ 4063 to Kate.

-- 
nix

[Arbitor] @Gaelan Re: BUS: [CFJ] Semantic information in rule changes

[nix via agora-business]

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.

-- 
nix
Arbitor

Re: BUS: NOTICE OF NO CONFIDENCE: wait what?

[nix via agora-business]

On 1/1/24 16:16, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
> 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

I number this CFJ 4061. I assign it to myself.

-- 
nix
Arbitor

BUS: [Arbitor] New Arbitor in Town @kiako @Kate @Yachay @ais523 @Janet @Murphy

[nix via agora-business]

I deputize as Arbitor to assign CFJ 4054 to kiako. The text of the CFJ
can be found here:
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg45340.html

Now that I am Arbitor:

I assign CFJ 4055 to Kate.
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg45491.html

I assign CFJ 4056 to Yachay.
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg45551.html

I assign CFJ 4057 to ais523.
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg45651.html

I assign CFJ 4058 to Janet.
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg45651.html

I assign CFJ 4059 to Murphy.
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg45651.html

PLEASE NOTE: I'm aware some of these cases are stale, and some of them
are pretty complex. I ask that judges recuse quickly if they think
themselves unqualified to judge them. I also ask anyone that feels more
qualified to speak up. I'd like to get the docket caught up as soon as
possible.

-- 
nix

BUS: [@Herald] Re: ALT: (@Herald) Thesis still needs review/feedback/corrections/additions

[nix via agora-business]

On 11/15/23 17:17, 4st nomic wrote:
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: *4st nomic* <4st.no...@gmail.com >
> Date: Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 1:30 PM
> Subject: (@Herald) Thesis still needs review/feedback/corrections/additions
> To: Agora Business  >
> 

I petition the Herald to assign a review board for this thesis.

-- 
nix

BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9058-9061

[nix via agora-business]

On 2/12/24 17:26, secretsnail9 via agora-official wrote:
> ID  Author(s)   AITitle
> ---
> 9058*   Aris, G.3.0   Things Mean What They're Meant to Mean

FOR

> 9059~   Maloney 1.0   Ambiguity Amendment

AGAINST; Aris' seems to fix the problem in a more clear way, IMO. I
think there's a lot of potential debate over "alter the function".

> 9060~   Maloney 1.0   Ambiguity Amendment


AGAINST; Aris' seems to fix the problem in a more clear way, IMO. I
think there's a lot of potential debate over "alter the function".

> 9061~   snail   2.0   Wake Up Call

AGAINST; I don't want to have to monitor that.

-- 
nix

BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9053-9057

[nix via agora-business]

On 1/30/24 16:46, secretsnail9 via agora-official wrote:
> ID  Author(s)   AITitle
> ---
> 9053~   Jimmy   1.0   (none)

PRESENT

> 9054~   4st, Jimmy  1.0   Agoran Christmas

AGAINST

> 9055~   Maloney 1.0   Radiance Day

PRESENT, tho I don't think this does anything.

> 9056*   nix...[1]   3.0   Vacations

FOR

> 9057*   snail...[2] 3.0   Vacations v2

AGAINST; I'd rather just let someone flip Delegate to None by
announcement if e is the current delegate than add another switch.
Second paragraph doesn't account for delegatable, which can lead to
annoying situations where you attempt a flip that we later find out
didn't work.



-- 
nix

BUS: [Proposal] Vacations

[nix via agora-business]

I submit the following proposal:

{
Title: Vacations
AI: 3
Author: nix
Co-Author(s): Janet, 4st, Yachay, G., juan, Murphy

[This proposal adds Vacations and Delegation, which encourage officers
to take time off and give the responsibility to someone else for a
while. Not only is this intended to reduce burnout for officers, but it
is also intended to be an opportunity for other players to learn an
office without fully committing to it.]

Amend R2438 by replacing "Cyan (C): When a person deputises for an
office" with "Cyan (C): When a person deputises for an office or is the
delegate for an office while its holder is on vacation."

Enact a new Power=3 rule titled "Vacations & Delegation" with the
following text:

    Delegate is an Office switch with possible values of "None" and
    any active player, and default value of "None". Delegates are
    tracked by the ADoP in eir weekly report.
    
    A player CAN flip the Delegate switch of a specified office to
    emself with Agoran Consent. If the Delegate switch of an office is
    set to "None", the holder of that office CAN flip the Delegate
    switch of that office to a specified player with notice.    
    
    An officer CAN and SHOULD take a Vacation from a specified office e
    has continuously held for over 6 months with 7 day notice, if e has
    not done so in the last year. When an officer qualifies for a
    Vacation, the ADoP SHOULD encourage em to take one, at least once a
    quarter.

    An officer is On Vacation from a specified office if e has taken a
    Vacation from that office in the last 30 days. The list of officers
    currently on vacation is part of the ADoP's report.

    While the holder of an office is On Vacation, the Delegate of that
    office can act as if e is the holder of the Office.

    Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, while an officer is On
    Vacation that officer NEED NOT comply with any duties of that
    office, and the Delegate, if any, SHALL comply with all duties of
    the office as if e held the office.
}

-- 
nix

@ADoP Re: BUS: @ADoP Voting

[nix via agora-business]

On 1/12/24 12:34, nix via agora-business wrote:
> In the PM election, I vote [Ben, Mercury, juan, kiako, 4st]

I withdraw the above vote. I vote [Mercury, Liz, Jimmy, Ben, Goren,
Crystalizedmire, nix, Zipzap, Kate, kiako, Anneke-Constantine, blob,
Yachay, 4st, Aris, juan, snail, ais523, cuddlybanana, Janet, Murphy,
Gaelan, omd].

(Reverse order of current registration.

-- 
nix

BUS: @ADoP Voting

[nix via agora-business]

In the PM election, I vote [Ben, Mercury, juan, kiako, 4st]

-- 
nix

Re: BUS: @Promotor Re: [Proposal] New Year New Economy

[nix via agora-business]

I withdraw the proposal title Stamp Specialization v1.1.

The more I try to tweak certain elements of it, the more I believe how
Stamps (and possibly how all assets) are defined should be improved
first, otherwise it'll be quite kludgy. I'm hoping to get that done
soon, but for now this isn't ready to be voted on.

Thanks for all the feedback everyone!
-- 
nix

BUS: @Promotor Re: [Proposal] New Year New Economy

[nix via agora-business]

I withdraw the proposal titled "Stamp Specialization".

Things Changed (thanks 4st for the first two):
* Winning (by this method) now destroys your Victory Tokens.
* Stones are properly fixed assets now (instead of the contradictory
  previous definition of both fixed AND liquid).
* Hot Potato now properly resets when it's grabbed (instead of when
  Agora owns it).

I submit the following proposal:

{
Title: Stamp Specialization v1.1
Adoption Index: 2
Author: nix
Co-Authors: 4st, ais523, Janet

Enact a new Power 1 rule titled "Stamp Specialization":

    Stamp Specialization is a person switch with potential values "None"
    (default), "Any", "Selfsame", "Stone", and "Strength", tracked by
    the Collector.
    
    If e has not done so since the last time e registered, or since the
    last time a player won via tokens (whichever is more recent), a
    player CAN flip eir Stamp Specialization switch to "Selfsame",
    "Stone", or "Strength" by announcement.
    
    If a person has not been a player for the last three months, any
    player CAN flip that player's Stamp Specialization switch to "Any"
    by announcement. When a player registers, if eir Stamp
    Specialization switch is set to "Any", flip it to "None".
    
    To pay a fee of a "X" Stamp, where X is a Stamp Specialization, is
    to pay a fee of a Stamp whose corresponding player's Stamp
    Specialization is either X or "Any".

Enact a new Power 1 rule titled "Victory Tokens":

    Victory Tokens are an asset tracked by the Collector in eir weekly
    report. A player CAN pay a Selfsame Stamp, a Stone Stamp, and a
    Strength Stamp to grant emself 1 Victory Token.
    
    If a player has more Victory Tokens than each other player, the
    Boulder's Height is 50 or more, and no one has done so in the last
    7 days, that player CAN win by announcement. When a player does so,
    eir Victory Tokens are destroyed.

Enact a new Power 2 rule titled "Stamps for Strength":

    A player CAN pay three Strength Stamps. Eir Voting Strength is
    increased by 2 on all ordinary referenda currently being voted on
    for every time e has done so during its voting period.

Amend R2659, "Stamps", by deleting the following:

  Any player CAN, once per week, pay X Stamps, where each specified
  Stamp is a different type, to gain (X^2)-X radiance.
  
  Any player CAN, once per week, pay X Stamps, where each Stamp is
  the same type, to gain (X-1)*2 radiance.
  
and adding:

    At the beginning of the month, X stamps of eir own type are granted
    to each player. When e owns less than 8 Stamps, X is 5. When e owns
    8 to 15 Stamps, X is 3. When e owns 16 or more Stamps, X is 1.
    
    A player CAN pay three Selfsame Stamps to grant emself 2 Stamps of
    eir own type.

Repeal R2675 ("Dream of Wandering").

Repeal R2656 ("Radiance").

Amend R2640, "Stones" by replacing:

    A stone is a unique indestructible liquid asset

with:

    A stone is a unique fixed indestructible asset
    
and deleting:

    (ii) The smoothness of the stone, which is a non-negative integer;
    
Amend R2641, "Wielding Stones" by replacing:

  While a stone is hot, it is IMPOSSIBLE to wield it or to transfer
  it by announcement
  
with:

  While a stone is hot, it is IMPOSSIBLE to wield it

Amend R2642, "Gathering Stones", to read in full:

    Grab Cost is an integer stone switch with default value 10, tracked
    by the Stonemason. At the beginning of each week, the Grab Cost of
    each Stone is decreased by 1, unless it is already 0.
    
    A player CAN "grab" a specified, non-immune stone by paying a fee of
    X Stone Stamps, where X is the Stone's current Grab Cost. When e
    does so, the specified stone is transferred to em and its Grab Cost
    is set to 10.

Repeal R2643, "Collecting Stones".

Amend R2645, "The Stones", to read in full:

  The following stones are defined, one per paragraph, with the
  following format: Stone Name (Frequency): Description.
  
  - Power Stone (weekly): When this stone is wielded, a specified
    player (defaulting to the wielder if not specified) is Power
    Stoned; Power Stoning is secured. A player's voting strength on
    a referendum on an ordinary proposal is increased by 3 for each
    time that e was Power Stoned during the referendum's voting
    period.
  
  - Soul Stone (weekly): When wielded, this stone is transferred
    to the owner of a different specified non-immune stone not owned
    by Agora, then that stone is transferred to the wielder.
  
  - Sabotage Stone (weekly): When wielded, the adoption index of
    a specified AI-majority Agoran decision is increased by 1.
  
  - Minty Stone (weekly): When wielded, a specified Player gains
    a stamp of eir own type.
  
  - Protection Stone (monthly): When wielded, a specified stone
    is granted immunity.
  
  - Recursion 

BUS: [Proposal] New Year, New Economy

[nix via agora-business]

This is a final version of the proto I drafted in November. The basic gameplay:

You choose a stamp specialization (Selfsame, Stone, or Strength) that applies 
to all stamps of your type (all "nix stamps" for me. At the beginning of each 
month, you receive stamps of your type based on how many you currently own. 25 
if you own less than 8, 3 if you own 8 to 15, and 1 otherwise.

To win: One stamp of each specialization can be traded in for a Victory Token. 
When the boulder's height is 50 or more, the person with the most Victory 
Tokens can win.

Selfsame Stamps: Pay 3 selfsame stamps for 2 stamps of your own type.

Strength Stamps: Pay three strength stamps to increase your voting strength on 
proposals by 2.

Stone Stamps: Stones now have a grab cost. It starts at 10 and decreases by 1 
every week (to a minimum of 1). To grab a stone, pay its cost in stone stamps, 
regardless of who currently owns it. When someone grabs a stone, its cost goes 
back to 10.

I submit the following proposal:

{
Title: Stamp Specialization
Adoption Index: 2
Author: nix
Co-Authors: 4st, ais523, Janet

Enact a new Power 1 rule titled "Stamp Specialization":

    Stamp Specialization is a person switch with potential values "None"
    (default), "Any", "Selfsame", "Stone", and "Strength", tracked by
    the Collector.
    
    If e has not done so since the last time e registered, or since the
    last time a player won via tokens (whichever is more recent), a
    player CAN flip eir Stamp Specialization switch to "Selfsame",
    "Stone", or "Strength" by announcement.
    
    If a person has not been a player for the last three months, any
    player CAN flip that player's Stamp Specialization switch to "Any"
    by announcement. When a player registers, if eir Stamp
    Specialization switch is set to "Any", flip it to "None".
    
    To pay a fee of a "X" Stamp, where X is a Stamp Specialization, is
    to pay a fee of a Stamp whose corresponding player's Stamp
    Specialization is either X or "Any".

Enact a new Power 1 rule titled "Victory Tokens":

    Victory Tokens are an asset tracked by the Collector in eir weekly
    report. A player CAN pay a Selfsame Stamp, a Stone Stamp, and a
    Strength Stamp to grant emself 1 Victory Token.
    
    If a player has more Victory Tokens than each other player, the
    Boulder's Height is 50 or more, and no one has done so in the last
    7 days, that player CAN win by announcement.

Enact a new Power 2 rule titled "Stamps for Strength":

    A player CAN pay three Strength Stamps. Eir Voting Strength is
    increased by 2 on all ordinary referenda currently being voted on
    for every time e has done so during its voting period.

Amend R2659, "Stamps", by deleting the following:

  Any player CAN, once per week, pay X Stamps, where each specified
  Stamp is a different type, to gain (X^2)-X radiance.
  
  Any player CAN, once per week, pay X Stamps, where each Stamp is
  the same type, to gain (X-1)*2 radiance.
  
and adding:

    At the beginning of the month, X stamps of eir own type are granted
    to each player. When e owns less than 8 Stamps, X is 5. When e owns
    8 to 15 Stamps, X is 3. When e owns 16 or more Stamps, X is 1.
    
    A player CAN pay three Selfsame Stamps to grant emself 2 Stamps of
    eir own type.

Repeal R2675 ("Dream of Wandering").

Repeal R2656 ("Radiance").

Amend R2640, "Stones" by replacing:

    A stone is a unique indestructible liquid asset

with:

    A stone is a unique fixed indestructible liquid asset
    
and deleting:

    (ii) The smoothness of the stone, which is a non-negative integer;
    
Amend R2641, "Wielding Stones" by replacing:

  While a stone is hot, it is IMPOSSIBLE to wield it or to transfer
  it by announcement
  
with:

  While a stone is hot, it is IMPOSSIBLE to wield it

Amend R2642, "Gathering Stones", to read in full:

    Grab Cost is an integer stone switch with default value 10, tracked
    by the Stonemason. At the beginning of each week, the Grab Cost of
    each Stone is decreased by 1, unless it is already 0.
    
    A player CAN "grab" a specified, non-immune stone by paying a fee of
    X Stone Stamps, where X is the Stone's current Grab Cost. When e
    does so, the specified stone is transferred to em and its Grab Cost
    is set to 10.

Repeal R2643, "Collecting Stones".

Amend R2645, "The Stones", to read in full:

  The following stones are defined, one per paragraph, with the
  following format: Stone Name (Frequency): Description.
  
  - Power Stone (weekly): When this stone is wielded, a specified
    player (defaulting to the wielder if not specified) is Power
    Stoned; Power Stoning is secured. A player's voting strength on
    a referendum on an ordinary proposal is increased by 3 for each
    time that e was Power Stoned during the referendum's voting
    period.
  
  - Soul Stone (weekly): When 

BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9046-9048

[nix via agora-business]

On 12/10/23 16:48, secretsnail9 via agora-official wrote:
> ID  Author(s)   AITitle
> ---
> 9046~   4st, ais523, Gaelan 1.0   Crystal fix 1

ENDORSE 4st.

> 9047*   4st, Janet, ais523  3.0   Shameless copy of Adoption AI
> Security with the right AI

ENDORSE Janet.

> 9048*   nix, 4st, snail 3.0   It's been 4+ years, Agora. 4+ YEARS.

FOR

-- 
nix

BUS: [@distributor] Test Email, Lists Down

[nix via agora-business]

This email contains no game actions besides the following: I object.

Sending this email to see which lists are working and alert the distributor.

-- 
nix

BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Degree Decision - "Snapshots" by snail

[nix via agora-business]

On 12/5/23 11:34, 4st nomic via agora-official wrote:
> I intend to, with 2 Agoran Consent, award snail a degree of "Associate of
> Nomic Art".

I object. I get that to some extent this is a protest of the current
system, but I don't think it works as a form of protest. It doesn't
actually make any commentary about the process. The submitted links
aren't relevant textually or meta-textually.

At the risk of sounding pretentious, when I think of art protesting the
institution that judges the art, I think of Duchamp's Fountain. It's
recognizable in both literal ways (it's literally a urinal, not even one
the artist made, visibly unpleasant and unartistic) and metatextual ways
(it was submitted to a gallery that promised to display every
submission, and then subsequently not displayed).

-- 
nix

BUS: [Proposal] Forcing the issue

[nix via agora-business]

I submit the following proposal:

{
Title: It's been 4+ years, Agora. 4+ YEARS.
Adoption Index: 3.0
Author: nix
Co-authors: 4st, snail


Ratify the Short Logical Ruleset published on the 19th of June, 2023,
available here [1].

[1]
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-June/017167.html
}

-- 
nix

BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 9032-9034

[nix via agora-business]

On 12/3/23 16:48, Janet Cobb via agora-official wrote:
> IDTitle   Result  
> --
> 9032  Rules as Items v6   ADOPTED 
> 9033  It's been 4 years, Agora. 4 YEARS.  REJECTED
> 9034  A simple fixADOPTED 

CoE (if applicable): None of these were distributed. Distribution is not
self-ratifying, and the AI of the decision, which is required for
distribution, was not listed in the attempt to distribute.

-- 
nix

BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9040-9045

[nix via agora-business]

On 12/3/23 18:10, secretsnail9 via agora-official wrote:
> ID  Author(s)   AITitle
> ---
> 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

I vote AGAINST on each of the above quoted referenda.

-- 
nix

Re: BUS: (@Herald) Maze protocol

[nix via agora-business]

On 11/26/23 02:56, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote:
> I respond to the petition as follows: worth a shot!
> 
> I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to enact the following regulation as
> Herald:
> 
> {
> (Herald Administrative Regulation MAZE)
> 
> Each player CAN award emself the Patent Title "Rookie" by announcement if e
> satisfies the following conditions:
> 1. E has, through game actions e has taken, caused a switch to flip.
> 2. E has created and destroyed an asset in the same message.
> 3. E has submitted a proposal.
> 4. E has tabled an intent.
> 5. E has voted.
> 6. E has no Patent Titles prior to awarding emself this patent title.
> 7. E has cited all conditions e has fulfilled
> other than this one.
> 
> A player SHOULD attempt to figure these out on eir own by asking
> questions, research, and the like, and SHOULD NOT look at the sources cited
> for unfinished items for a player who has completed it. (This is to help
> you understand the rules better, not to just get an easy patent title, so
> it's not punishable to look, the act of looking is perceived to be the
> punishment itself.)
> }

I object to this intent. 2 is oddly specific, 6 disqualifies a lot of
people I would think would be good candidates for this. Might suggest
tweaking 6 to disqualifying only champion titles so people aren't locked
out for badges or six months service.

All that said, I'd rather see a more meaningful version of this, like a
yearly Rookie of the Year.

-- 
nix

BUS: Re: OFF: [Absurdor] The State of the Absurd

[nix via agora-business]

On 11/27/23 14:16, juan via agora-official wrote:
> ==
> absurdor: juan  The State of the Absurd 2023-11-27
>  
> ==

Boulder push, I.

-- 
nix

BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9035-9039

[nix via agora-business]

On 11/26/23 16:50, secretsnail9 via agora-official wrote:
> ID  Author(s)   AITitle
> ---
> 9035~   snail, 4st  2.0   Unbreaking Motions

I vote Endorse Aris.

> 9037~   Murphy  2.0   Uncrossed arms

I vote FOR; tho I intend to propose something that replaces this
mechanism anyway.

> 9038~   Murphy  1.0   Ratify the Ruleset Week

I vote FOR; Then I vote FOR again, if possible.

> 9039~   juan1.0   Well, worth a shot

I vote AGAINST; What's in it for me.

-- 
nix

BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 9032-9034

[nix via agora-business]

On 11/19/23 17:26, secretsnail9 via agora-official wrote:
> ID  Author(s)   AITitle
> --
> 9033*   4st, Janet, nix, snail  3.0   It's been 4 years, Agora. 4 YEARS.

I vote FOR. I'll change this vote if someone else promises to submit a
ratification attempt by the end of 2023.

> 9034~   snail, nix  1.0   A simple fix

I vote FOR.

-- 
nix

Re: BUS: [Herald] Long Service Awards

[nix via agora-business]

On 11/22/23 10:17, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote:
> I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to award juan the patent title "Six Months 
> Long Service".
> 
> I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to award juan the patent title "Nine Months 
> Long Service".
> 
> I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to award juan the patent title "Twelve 
> Months Long Service".
> 
> I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to award snail the patent title "Twelve 
> Months Long Service".

I support each of the intents quoted above.

-- 
nix

Re: BUS: [Prime Minister] State-sanctioned celebrations (for real)

[nix via agora-business]

On 11/16/23 21:02, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> Title: Celebration!
> Author: Janet
> Coauthors:
> Adoption index: 3.0

I vote AGAINST on this decision.

-- 
nix

Re: BUS: [Prime Minister] State-sanctioned celebrations (for real)

[nix via agora-business]

On 11/16/23 21:10, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>>> On the above decision I vote FOR.
>>>
>> *sigh*
>>
>> On the above-initiated I vote FOR. (Probably this fails since I already
>> did so but I continue to be paranoid.)
>>
> *sigh* *sigh*
> 
> On the above-initiated *decision* I vote FOR. (Probably this fails as
> before.)

Just in case I can and it helps, I vote FOR on Janet's behalf.

-- 
nix

Re: (@everyone) BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Infraction Reaction

[nix via agora-business]

On 11/11/23 02:55, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
> For each infraction in the set {[2] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [13]
> [14]}, I intend, with Agoran Consent, to forgive it. 4st cannot support
> these intents.

I support each of these intents. As I understand it, this would reduce
4st to 6 blots, which seems reasonable.

-- 
nix

Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9027-9030

[nix via agora-business]

On 11/13/23 10:30, nix via agora-business wrote:
> I change my vote on proposal 9029 to AGAINST. It doesn't fix Revolution,
> which I'm now guessing was the reason this is an "in full" amendment.

Ugh my bad. I change my vote on 9029 back to PRESENT. I mistook the
direction of the change (points -> radiance, not the other way).

-- 
nix

Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9027-9030

[nix via agora-business]

On 11/13/23 10:27, nix via agora-business wrote:
>> 9029~   snail, Zipzap   2.0   Sharing takes Care
> PRESENT; this proposal does exactly what it says it does, but I had to
> run it through a diff checker to be sure. This should've just been a
> "Amend 2675 by replacing X with Y" proposal so nothing could be hidden
> in it. It's dangerous practice.

I change my vote on proposal 9029 to AGAINST. It doesn't fix Revolution,
which I'm now guessing was the reason this is an "in full" amendment.

-- 
nix

@Promotor Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Rules as Items V5

[nix via agora-business]

On 11/9/23 20:33, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
> {
> Title: Rules as Items v6
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: 4st
> Co-author(s): Janet, kiako, snail
> 
> Enact the following rule entitled "Crystals":{
> The Geologist is an office that tracks crystals.
> 
> A crystal is an asset with secured integer switches identity, size (default
> 0), and instability (default 0).
> 
> Each quarter, each crystal whose identity is not equal to the ID of any
> rule in the current ruleset has its size increased by 3.
> 
> If a proposal amends or repeals a rule, if a crystal exists whose identity
> equals that rule's id, that crystal absorbs that proposal. Otherwise, grant
> to the author of the proposal a crystal with identity equal to the ID of
> that rule, then that crystal absorbs that proposal. Each crystal can only
> absorb a given proposal once by this method.
> 
> When a crystal absorbs a proposal, the following occur in sequence:
> - The size of that crystal is increased by the power of that proposal
> (rounded down).
> - If that crystal's owner is not the author of that proposal, the
> instability of that crystal is increased by 3.
> - If the instability of that crystal is greater than its size, it is
> transferred to the author of the proposal, then its instability becomes
> equal to its size.
> 
> A player is crystallized if the total size of crystals e owns is at least
> the number of rules in the current ruleset.
> 
> Any player CAN, by announcement, Shatter the System, specifying each
> crystallized player, and provided that no player has done so in the past 30
> days. When a player does so, each crystallized player wins the game.
> 
> If at least 4 days have passed since any player won the game in this
> manner, any player CAN repeal this rule by announcement.
> }

I petition the promotor to distribute this proposal.

-- 
nix

BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9027-9030

[nix via agora-business]

On 11/13/23 06:12, secretsnail9 via agora-official wrote:
> ID  Author(s)   AITitle
> ---
> 9027*   Kate, snail 3.0   De-Escalating the Hole

FOR

> 9028~   Janet   2.0   Fairness in Crime Act

PRESENT

> 9029~   snail, Zipzap   2.0   Sharing takes Care

PRESENT; this proposal does exactly what it says it does, but I had to
run it through a diff checker to be sure. This should've just been a
"Amend 2675 by replacing X with Y" proposal so nothing could be hidden
in it. It's dangerous practice.

> 9030~   4st 1.0   (n/a)

There is no such proposal.

-- 
nix

Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4051 Assigned to snail

[nix via agora-business]

On 10/20/23 16:42, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote:
> I self-file a motion to reconsider CFJ 4051, and judge it FALSE. I thought
> 67 was the "dream didn't work" number.

I intend with 5 support to enter this CFJ 4051 into a moot. I intend
with 6 support to enter CFJ 4051 into a moot (in case enough time passes
to invalidate the previous).

The conclusion of 4051 *seems* to contradict the conclusions of CFJs
4018, 3831, and 3838. The former found a specific scenario where
radiance and points were equal (a scenario that notably benefited the
judge that ruled otherwise here), and the latter have found that
synonyms, from common usage or agoran usage, generally work.

I think a judgment needs to explain why this situation is different than
the others where synonyms have worked, or else find TRUE.

-- 
nix

Re: BUS: My intent to join

[nix via agora-business]

On 11/10/23 17:07, Fredrica Turner via agora-business wrote:
> I'm joining this game of nomic
> Please use Crystalizedmire when referring to me

Ah, there we go. I grant Crystalizedmire a Welcome Package.

-- 
nix

BUS: Re: OFF: [Collector] Stamp Collections (08 Nov 2023)

[nix via agora-business]

On 11/8/23 05:58, secretsnail9 via agora-official wrote:

Stamp Holdings as of 8 Nov 2023

--
Stamp Holdings
--


CoE: I own a stamp granted to me by a welcome package.

--
nix

Re: BUS: A new government [attn. ADoP]

[nix via agora-business]

On 11/8/23 16:17, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> On 11/4/23 20:52, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>> As the office is interim, I intend, with 2 support, to initiate an
>> election for Prime Minister (also becoming a candidate at the time of
>> initiation).
>>
> 
> With 2 support (from snail and 4st), I do so (initiating the election).
> 
> I become a candidate in the ongoing Prime Minister election.
> 
> Campaign speech: I will be a calm and levelheaded Prime Minister. Also,
> I'm not the other guy (nor any guy at all).
> 

I become a candidate for the ongoing Prime Minister election. And
because I'm such a go-getter and visionary, I become a candidate for
every non-ongoing Prime Minister election I can too. My competition is
only doing the minimum.

My campaign speech:

I *am* the other guy. Everyone talks about me every election cycle, so
you know I'm a big deal.

I will implement an eagletarian approach, because they are beautiful and
majestic creatures. Also they're huge. Like seriously have you ever been
close to one? Bigger than you think. Kinda like how I'm a big deal.

I just ate ice cream, which makes me cooler than normal. My opponents
probably didn't recently eat ice cream, so they are probably roughly 98
degrees Fehrenheit. Not very cool. I'm a big deal AND cool.

-- 
nix

BUS: @Distributor List Status

[nix via agora-business]

There are no game actions here, I am just testing the lists and emailing
the distributor to let em know the lists may be down and get a status
update.

-- 
nix

Re: BUS: (no subject 2)

[nix via agora-business]

On 10/12/23 17:20, nix via agora-business wrote:
> An image of me registering for Agora that is also my registration for Agora.

If I am not already registered, I register as a player of Agora.

-- 
nix

BUS: (no subject 2)

[nix via agora-business]

An image of me registering for Agora that is also my registration for Agora.

BUS: (no subject)

[nix via agora-business]

file:///tmp/Screenshot_2023-10-12_17-16-26.png

BUS: Deregistration

[nix via agora-business]

I deregister. I'm not really playing, or interested in playing, 
currently. No big reason, I'm just busy and don't like the current 
gameplay or direction that recent judgments have gone. Might be back 
when I have more free-time.


--
nix

Re: BUS: [Surveyor] Weekly Commune Report (ADDENDUM)

[nix via agora-business]

On 6/6/23 18:35, nix via agora-business wrote:
> Janet (f. Emerald)
> --
> Constructors (L,M,R): 1, 2, 9
> Tokens: C, D, 5, I, 6
> Investments: Jade
> Accolades:

Janet should have a Burgundy investment.

> snail (f. Red)
> --
> Constructors (L,M,R): E, F, 4
> Tokens: E, E, 4, G, 3, G, 6, 3, F, 4
> Investments:
> Accolades: 3

Entirely forgot to reflect snail's moves here.

In total these should read:

Janet (f. Emerald)
--
Constructors (L,M,R): 1, 2, 9
Tokens: C, D, 5, I, 6
Investments: Jade, Burgundy
Accolades:

snail (f. Red)
--
Constructors (L,M,R): E, F, 4
Tokens: E, E, 4, G, 3, G, 6, 3, F, 4, E, F, 4
Investments: Burgundy
Accolades: 3

-- 
nix
Prime Minister

BUS: Recusal @Arbitor (Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4038 Assigned to nix)

[nix via agora-business]

On 6/4/23 08:29, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote:
> The below CFJ is 4038.  I assign it to nix.
> 
> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4038
> 
> ===  CFJ 4038  ===
> 
>   The above-quoted Registrar's report contains a statement that the
>   person that, as of 2023-01-01, would have been known as Blob is a
>   player.
> 
> ==

I recuse myself. There's no way I'm getting to this in a timely manner,
unfortunately.

-- 
nix
Prime Minister

BUS: [Surveyor] Weekly Commune Report

[nix via agora-business]

Events since last time
==
ais523 places a tile at G2.

Olive (5) merges into Jade (17). There were 7 investments in Olive. G.
and nix owned 2 each, giving them both 1 accolade.

juan invests in Burgundy, grants emself a 7 token, and sets eir M, R
constructors to A, C respectively.

G. plays on H3, expanding Jade to (24).

ais523 grants emself a 3, G, and 5.

Janet sets eir L, M, R constructors to 1, 2, 9 respectively and grants
emself an investment in Burgundy.

snail grants emself an E, F, 4 from eir L, M, R constructors
respectively, and invests in Burgundy.

Tournament will end July 19th or when a community has 51 or more tiles.

Board State
===

  A B C D E F G H I J
 +---+
0|• • • • • • • • • J|0
1|• • • • • • • • J J|1
2|• • • • J • J J J •|2
3|• • • • J J J J • •|3
4|• • J J J • • • • •|4
5|• • • J • • • • • •|5
6|• • J J J J J • • •|6
7|• B • • • • J J J J|7
8|• • • • • • • • • •|8
9|• • • • • • • • • •|9
 +---+
  A B C D E F G H I J

• - Empty
B - Burgundy (1)
J - Jade (24)
O - Olive (5)

Current Holdings


4st
---
Constructors (L,M,R): E, 2, 3
Tokens: D, 3, E, G, 3
Investments:
Accolades: 2

ais523
--
Constructors (L,M,R): 3, G, 5
Tokens: 3, 4, 3, G, 5
Investments:
Accolades: 2

G.
-
Constructors (L,M,R): I, 2, 3
Tokens: 2, 2, 3
Investments:
Accolades: 1

inalienableWright (f. Burgundy)
---
Constructor (L,M,R): 7, B, D
Tokens: D
Investments: Burgundy
Accolades:

Janet (f. Emerald)
--
Constructors (L,M,R): 1, 2, 9
Tokens: C, D, 5, I, 6
Investments: Jade
Accolades:

juan (f. Jade)
--
Constructors (L,M,R): 7, A, C
Tokens: 7
Investments: Jade, Jade, Burgundy
Accolades:

nix (f. Olive)
--
Constructors (L,M,R): J, I, 2
Tokens: J, I, 2
Investments: Jade
Accolades: 2

snail (f. Red)
--
Constructors (L,M,R): E, F, 4
Tokens: E, E, 4, G, 3, G, 6, 3, F, 4
Investments:
Accolades: 3

Summary of Gameplay
===

How to win
--

Have the most Accolades, which are gained by owning investments in
Communes when they are merged into bigger Communes.

Investment Calculation
--

S / T * N

S - size of the community being acquired.
T - total number of investments all participants have in that community.
N - number of investments the given participant has in that community.

How to play
---

You have three Constructors. Each week for each of your constructors you
can either set it to construct a token, or grant yourself what it is
currently constructing.

Tokens have values 0-9 and A-J. Pay two tokens to place a tile on a
spot. If everything around that spot is empty, you found a commune; name
it after a color. If it is next to an existing commune, it joins that
commune. If it is next to more than one commune, they merge.

You can grant yourself an investment in any commune once a week. You
also get an investment in any commune you found. You can have a max of
10 investments.

-- 
nix
Prime Minister

BUS: CFJ 4033 judged IRRELEVANT. (Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4033 Assigned to nix)

[nix via agora-business]

On 5/25/23 18:37, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote:
> ===  CFJ 4033  ===
> 
>   There is a currently registered player named “blob”.
> 
> ==

I judge this CFJ IRRELEVANT.

The rules do not mention and do not care about person's names. Reports
and actions need to clearly differentiate who they are referring to, but
nothing says that needs to be done by names. It's not regulated, nor is
it tracked. The closest we get to tracking anything like names is the
Registrar's report, which must include "information sufficient to
identify and contact each player." This could be many things, such as
email address, assigned identifiers, registration date, or many other
solutions. Some are clearly more useful than others, but all seem allowable.

It also seems to be that nobody is debating whether this person is
called blob. I could be wrong here, but the debate appears to be about
whether that is ambiguous.

Meaningful questions may arise in specific usages of this name as an
identifier. It may very well be ambiguous with the previous player also
known as blob, especially in instances of reports that mention both
(Herald, Registrar, and Rulekeepor monthlies perhaps) or in actions that
can refer to any persons, not just current players (titles, ribbons).
These deserve their own CFJs when they occur, with arguments about the
specific instance.

There's also a very valid concern about whether this muddies the clarity
of historical documents, or historical research. I think this concern
needs to be balanced with the long-standing tradition that the caller
mentions of allowing players to choose their own name, and of referring
to players primarily by chosen name. This appears to be a conflict
between individual rights Agora gives, and the best interest of Agora
long-term. Both seem to be equally strong claims about the best
interests of Agora to me. Ideally this would be resolved by agreement on
conventions, either informally or legislatively.

In any case, I believe this CFJ is both the wrong question and the wrong
approach to addressing this conflict. I beseech interested parties to
seek common ground and to ask CFJs on specific instances of potential
ambiguity/conflict that more directly interact with the rules. When it
becomes clear how often this is actually an issue (or not) for play, it
may become easier to agree on standards.

-- 
nix
Prime Minister, Herald

Re: (CFJ=@Arbitor) BUS: A merge conflict

[nix via agora-business]

On 5/28/23 18:25, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
> CFJ: In the context of Commune, tile G6 is not empty, but belongs to no
> community.
> CFJ: In the context of Commune, at least one tile belongs to some
> community.

I disfavor these

-- 
nix
Prime Minister

BUS: [Surveyor] Weekly Commune Report

[nix via agora-business]

Events Worth Note
=
Green merged into Olive. Nobody had enough investments to gain any
accolades.

Yellow merged into Jade. ais523 gained 1 accolade (1/1*1).

Red merged into Jade. ais523 and nix gain 1 (7/2*1, rounded down)
accolade each. snail gains 3 (7/2*2, rounded down) accolades.

Board State
===

  A B C D E F G H I J
 +---+
0|• • • • • • • • • O|0
1|• • • • • • • • O O|1
2|• • • • J • • O O •|2
3|• • • • J J J • • •|3
4|• • J J J • • • • •|4
5|• • • J • • • • • •|5
6|• • J J J J J • • •|6
7|• B • • • • J J J J|7
8|• • • • • • • • • •|8
9|• • • • • • • • • •|9
 +---+
  A B C D E F G H I J

• - Empty
B - Burgundy (1)
J - Jade (16)
O - Olive (5)

Current Holdings


4st
---
Constructors (L,M,R): E, 2, 3
Tokens: D, 3, E, G, 3
Investments:
Accolades: 2

ais523
--
Constructors (L,M,R): 3, G, 5
Tokens: 3, 4, 2, G
Investments: Olive, Emerald
Accolades: 2

G.
-
Constructors (L,M,R): I, 2, 3
Tokens: 3, H, 2, 2, 3
Investments: Olive, Olive
Accolades:

inalienableWright (f. Burgundy)
---
Constructor (L,M,R): 7, B, D
Tokens: D
Investments: Olive, Emerald, Burgundy
Accolades:

Janet (f. Emerald)
--
Constructors (L,M,R): 5, I, 6
Tokens: C, D, 5, I, 6
Investments: Orange, Emerald, Jade
Accolades:

juan (f. Jade)
--
Constructors (L,M,R): 7, F, E
Tokens:
Investments: Jade, Jade
Accolades:

nix (f. Olive)
--
Constructors (L,M,R): J, I, 2
Tokens: J, I, 2
Investments: Olive, Olive, Jade
Accolades: 1

snail (f. Red)
--
Constructors (L,M,R): E, F, 4
Tokens: E, E, 4, G, 3, G, 6, 3, F, 4
Investments: Olive
Accolades: 2

Summary of Gameplay
===

How to win
--

Have the most Accolades, which are gained by owning investments in
Communes when they are merged into bigger Communes

How to play
---

You have three Constructors. Each week for each of your constructors you
can either set it to construct a token, or grant yourself what it is
currently constructing.

Tokens have values 0-9 and A-J. Pay two tokens to place a tile on a
spot. If everything around that spot is empty, you found a commune; name
it after a color. If it is next to an existing commune, it joins that
commune. If it is next to more than one commune, they merge.

You can grant yourself an investment in any commune once a week. You
also get an investment in any commune you found. You can have a max of
10 investments.

-- 
nix
Prime Minister

Re: BUS: [Surveyor] Weekly Commune Report

[nix via agora-business]

On 5/22/23 14:23, nix via agora-business wrote:

nix (f. Olive)
--
Constructors (L,M,R): J, I, 2
Tokens: J
Investments: Olive, Green, Red, Jade
Accolades:

From my Middle constructor I grant myself an I.

From my Right constructor I grant myself an 2.

I give myself an investment in Olive.

I place a tile at I2, merging Green into Olive.

--
nix
Prime Minister, Herald

Re: BUS: [DoV] (@Collector, @Herald) Radiant Stamps

[nix via agora-business]

On 5/24/23 19:02, nix via agora-business wrote:
> If I can do so (based on the current moot, which is leaning towards
> yes), I award snail the title of Champion.

I appoint snail to Speaker.

-- 
nix
Prime Minister, Herald

Re: BUS: [DoV] (@Collector, @Herald) Radiant Stamps

[nix via agora-business]

On 5/18/23 22:48, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote:
> I have 100 radiance. (This announcement causes me to win the game. I owe
> you a big favor, inalienableWright!)

If I can do so (based on the current moot, which is leaning towards
yes), I award snail the title of Champion.

-- 
nix
Prime Minister, Herald

Re: (@Collector, Herald) BUS: The Never-Ending Dance

[nix via agora-business]

On 5/17/23 16:45, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
> My radiance is 100 or more (specifically 100). The announcement in the
> previous sentence causes me to win the game.

If I can do so (based on the current moot, which is leaning towards
yes), I award ais623 the title of Champion.

-- 
nix
Prime Minister, Herald

Re: BUS: [Herald] Awards Month (@Promotor, @Arbitor, @Tailor, @ADoP)

[nix via agora-business]

On 5/16/23 15:25, nix via agora-business wrote:
> I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to award the patent title Employee of
> the Year (2022) to Janet (for offices Arbitor, Mad Engineer, Rulekeepor,
> and Stonemason).

With 2 Agoran Consent (4st and Murphy and no objections), I do so.

> I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to award the patent title Employee of
> the Year (2022) to snail (for offices Arbitor, Avicultor, Dream
> Keeper/Dreamor, Horsened, Ministor, Notary, Promotor, Registrar, and
> Treasuror).


With 2 Agoran Consent (4st and Murphy and no objections), I do so.

-- 
nix
Prime Minister, Herald

Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee

[nix via agora-business]

On 5/16/23 15:28, nix via agora-business wrote:
> Sorry, one more try, please support this one instead. I intend, with 2
> Agoran Consent, to award the patent title "Golden Glove (2022)" to snail.


With 2 Agoran Consent (Janet, 4st, Murphy and no dissent), I do so.

-- 
nix
Prime Minister, Herald