BUS: Contract
I consent to the following text and I agree to be bound by it as a contract:
{
This is a contract.
The parties to this contract are D. Margaux and G.
In a timely manner after this contract is formed, D. Margaux SHALL once
transfer to G. 1 coin.
In a timely manner after this contract is formed, G. SHALL once transfer to
D. Margaux 1 coin.
}
Re: BUS: Contract
I transfer 1 coin to G.
> On Feb 5, 2019, at 10:41 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I agree to this contract. -G.
>
>> On 2/5/2019 7:27 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
>> I consent to the following text and I agree to be bound by it as a contract:
>> {
>> This is a contract.
>> The parties to this contract are D. Margaux and G.
>> In a timely manner after this contract is formed, D. Margaux SHALL once
>> transfer to G. 1 coin.
>> In a timely manner after this contract is formed, G. SHALL once transfer to
>> D. Margaux 1 coin.
>> }
BUS: Re: Voodoo
Having given notice, I flip Tarhalindur's master switch to Agora. On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 4:25 PM D. Margaux wrote: > Having given notice, I deregister Tenhigitsune and pokes. RIP. > > > On Jan 29, 2019, at 11:03 AM, D. Margaux wrote: > > > > I intend with notice to flip Tarhalindur's master switch to Agora. (60 > > days is January 29) > > I intend with notice to flip Jacob Arduino's master switch to Agora. > > (60 days is February 4 at 1:46 PM EST.) > > I intend with notice to flip pokes's master switch to Agora. (90 days > > is February 3 at 10:12 AM EST.) > > I intend with notice to flip Tenhigitsune's master switch to Agora. > > (90 days is February 3 at 3:55 PM EST.) > > I intend with notice to deregister pokes. > > I intend with notice to deregister Tenhigitsune. >
BUS: Intent
I intend to deputise for Promotor to distribute the proposals in the proposal pool. I intend to deputise for Promotor to distribute the proposal that I submitted today and that was not withdrawn. (This is merely meant to ensure that I can force my scam proposal to be distributed this week, to reduce the chance that anyone could discover it or launch a counter-scam. This isn’t meant to be any kind of criticism of the commendable job done by our H. Promotor. If this inadvertently violates game norms, then I won’t execute either intent.)
Re: BUS: CFJ 3699 Judgement
I confer upon Trigon 3 favours in COS because of eir decision in CFJ 3699. > > I judge TRUE. > > -- > Trigon
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Side-Game Suspension Act
I withdraw the side game suspension act proposal. There are a few bugs in it
that would need to be fixed.
> On May 10, 2019, at 1:09 AM, James Cook wrote:
>
> For what it's worth, I'm interested in Spaaace!, but not enough to put
> time yet into assembling a new Astronomor's report when more basic
> officers' duties are unfilled.
>
> Is there much harm in just leaving the Astronomor office (effectively)
> vacant until someone finds the time? Not that I feel strongly, since I
> haven't got any Fame yet anyway. (I'm less familiar with the Politics
> subgame.) And I do agree it would be fun to try out this mechanism.
>
> Nit: Spaaace has three As.
>
>
>
>> On Wed, 8 May 2019 at 16:03, D Margaux wrote:
>>
>> We should probably do something about Spaace and Politics, since there’s
>> little interest in them, but the rules have lots of obligations that are
>> going unfulfilled. We could repeal those rules, but I thought this could be
>> a nice solution in case there is interest in reviving the games when people
>> come back.
>>
>> I submit the following proposal:
>>
>> Title: Side-Game Suspension Act
>> AI: 3
>> Text:
>>
>> The offices of Astronomor and Clork are made vacant.
>>
>> All switches defined by or created by the Politics Rules or the Spaace Rules
>> are flipped to their default values. All entities created by the Politics
>> Rules or the Spaace Rules are destroyed.
>>
>> Enact a rule (power=3) entitled “Space & Politics Suspension” with the
>> following text:
>>
>> {
>>
>> 1. The Spaace Rules are defined to be Rules 2588, 2589, 2590, 2591, 2592,
>> and 259.
>>
>> 2. The Politics Rules are defined to be Rules 2533, 2534, 2535, 2536, 2537,
>> 2538, 2539, 2540, 2586, 2542, and 2543.
>>
>> 3. Unless Spaace has been Revived, the Spaace Rules are suspended and have
>> no force or effect.
>>
>> 4. Unless Politics has been Revived, the Politics Rules are suspended and
>> have no force or effect.
>>
>> 5. A player CAN with 2 support Revive Spaace (unless Spaace has already
>> been Revived); that player is thereby installed into the office of
>> Astronomor.
>>
>> 6. A player CAN with 2 support Revive Politics (unless Politics has already
>> been Revived); that player is thereby installed into the office of Clork.
>>
>> 7. This Rule automatically repeals itself when Politics and Spaace have
>> both been Revived.
>>
>> 8. Any player CAN with Agoran Consent trigger this Rule. If this Rule is
>> triggered, the following events happen in order: (a) the Politics Rules are
>> automatically repealed (unless Politics has been Revived), (b) the Spaace
>> Rules are automatically repealed (unless Spaace has been Revived), and (c)
>> this Rule is automatically repealed.
>>
>> }
BUS: Church of Ritual
I propose the following as a contract and agree to be bound by it if it is accepted before next Saturday. I modified it to eliminate some of the potentially dangerous stuff. This is not a scam. /// This contract is called the Church of The Ritual or the Church. The text of this contract is called the Sacred Text. Parties to the contract are the faithful; nonparties are heathens. A heathen can become faithful by announcement upon transferring 5 coins to the Church of The Ritual. A faithful can become heathen by announcement, unless that faithful has left unsatisfied one or more collection obligations. When the Sacred Text refers to a “religion-imposed office,” that means a switch that behaves as closely as possible to the way it would behave if it were an imposed office created by rule. The priest, the heretic, and the inquisitor are religion-imposed offices. The priest is the recordkeepor of the holders of the religion-imposed offices. The priest is also the recordkeepor of the Sacred Text. The priest SHALL publish as part of eir weekly report a list of the holders of those offices and the Sacred Text. If a faithful performs The Ritual at a time when the office of priest is vacant, then that faithful is installed as priest. If the first player to perform The Ritual in a given Agoran week is faithful, then e is installed as the priest; otherwise, the first heathen to perform The Ritual in that Agoran week is installed as the heretic and the first faithful to perform The Ritual in that Agoran week is installed as the inquisitor. If the heretic recants eir heresy and abjectly apologizes, then the priest CAN by announcement cleanse the heretic and e SHALL do so in a timely manner if e believes the heretic to be sincere. When the heretic is cleansed, the offices of heretic and inquisitor are made vacant. If the heretic becomes faithful, then the offices of heretic and inquisitor are made vacant. The faithful MUST prevent all players from becoming the heretic; failure to do so is the crime of Abetting Heresy. The heretic SHOULD be shunned. The inquisitor SHOULD actively seek the consensus of the faithful regarding what would be an appropriate shunning. The priest and inquisitor SHOULD be treated right good. Upon being installed in the office of priest or inquisitor, a faithful CAN once cause the Church to transfer to em up to 3 coins. If the Church has fewer than 10 coins, any faithful CAN by announcement with support from another faithful once call a collection. If a collection is called, each faithful MUST in a timely fashion satisfy eir collection obligation by transferring to the Church 5 coins. If a faithful has left a collection obligation unsatisfied for longer than 7 days, any faithful CAN act on eir behalf to satisfy that obligation by causing em to transfer to the Church 5 coins. ///
BUS: Re: OFF: End of Zombie Auction
I pay Agora 2 coins to change L’s master switch to me. I cause L to convey all of eir liquid assets to me. On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 10:40 PM James Cook wrote: > The zombie auction I initiated 2019-05-09 has ended. > > Lots: > 1. V.J. Rada > 2. Telnaior > 3. L > 4. Baron von Vaderham > > Bids: > 2019-05-09 13:56 UTC. Falsifian. 1 Coin. (Withdrawn by R1885.) > 2019-05-09 14:35 UTC. Gaelan. 1 Coin. > 2019-05-09 15:00 UTC. G.. 5 Coins. (Withdrawn by later bid.) > 2019-05-09 15:07 UTC. D. Margaux. 2 Coins. > 2019-05-11 16:22 UTC. Rance. 2 Coins > 2019-05-15 04:16 UTC. Falsifian. 6 Coins. (Withdrawn by later bid.) > 2019-05-15 14:32 UTC. G.. 10 Coins. > 2019-05-16 03:18 UTC. Falsifian. 20 Coins. > > Winners: > Falsifian wins V. J. Rada. > G. wins Telnaior. > D. Margaux wins L. > Rance wins Baron von Vaderham. > > I believe Rule 2551 has instructions on claiming your prize. > -- D. Margaux
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)
Hmm. I admit that I am not sure I follow this. But I think we are in agreement about the ultimate outcome? I withdraw the CFJ I submitted yesterday. I CFJ barring Aris: “D. Margaux has more than 0 blots.” > On May 27, 2019, at 12:25 AM, James Cook wrote: > > On Mon, 27 May 2019 at 00:38, Aris Merchant > wrote: >> Falsifian, would you by any chance be interested in joining a court and/or >> judging this case? It’s one of the Arbitor’s unofficial responsibilities to >> make sure newer players have an opportunity to judge cases, since it’s a >> good way to get more involved in gameplay. > > I would be honoured, but would it be more appropriate to assign this > case to someone who hasn't already shown a preference for one outcome? > I invite whoever judges the case to refer to my arguments if they seem > helpful. > > I'm happy to try being on a court. How does weekend vs. day court > work? I have the most time on weekends, but if a case comes in on the > weekend I might end up dealing with it during the week depending on > circumstances. So really I don't mind getting a CFJ assigned at any > time during the week, if others don't mind me taking advantage of the > 7 days available.
BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)
If the H. Arbitor agrees, then I authorize the holder of the Office of
Arbitor to act on my behalf to investigate and conclude the investigation
of the finger pointed against me in the message quoted below, and for no
other purpose.
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 6:02 PM omd wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 3:20 AM D. Margaux wrote:
> >
> > The below reports are false. The reason for ratifying them is because
> the games are defunct and because it’s too hard to figure out what the
> gamestate of either of them is.
> >
> > I deputise for Astronomor to publish this report: {there are no entities
> in existence for which the Astronomor is the recordkeepor other than those
> created directly by the Rules. All switches for which the Astronomor is
> recordkeepor have their default value.}
> >
> > I deputise for Clork to publish this report: {there are no entities in
> existence for which the Clork is the recordkeepor other than those directly
> created by the Rules. All switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have
> their default value.}
>
> I Point my Finger at D. Margaux for violating rule 2143 by publishing
> information that is inaccurate within two documents purporting to be
> two offices' weekly reports. (The documents don't explicitly purport
> to be *weekly* reports, but this can be reasonably inferred from the
> attempt to deputise to publish them.)
>
--
D. Margaux
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8177
Having heard no objection, I ratify the document below.
There. Now it’s clear that the prior reports were indeed retroactively true and
accurate.
> On May 20, 2019, at 4:31 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
> I intend without objection to ratify the following document as true at the
> time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019:
>
> { For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace Rules” have
> the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.
>
> Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the Spaaace Rules
> has its default value.
>
> There are no currently existing entities or switches created by the Clork
> pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor pursuant to the Spaaace
> Rules. }
>
> The document is false; the reason for ratifying it is that the subgames are
> defunct.
>
>> On May 20, 2019, at 8:18 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
>>
>> What if, by ratification, we reset all Spaaace and Politics switches to
>> their default values before suspending?
>>
>>> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 8:08 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>>
>>> I vote AGAINST 8177.
>>> I act on behalf of Telnaior to vote AGAINST 8177.
>>>
>>> As commented earlier, I was knocked out of space early on, as have
>>> others. Willing to sit out of a subgame this long, but not through
>>> a whole revival.
>>>
>>> On 5/19/2019 6:49 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>> > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
>>> > Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
>>> > pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
>>> > quorum is 3, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
>>> > options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
>>> > conditional votes).
>>> >
>>> > IDAuthor(s) AITitle
>>> > ---
>>> > 8177 Aris, [1] 3.0 Side-Game Suspension Act (v3)
>>> >
>>> > The proposal pool is currently empty.
>>> >
>>> > [1] D Margaux, G.
>>> >
>>> > The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.
>>> >
>>> > //
>>> > ID: 8177
>>> > Title: Side-Game Suspension Act (v3)
>>> > Adoption index: 3.0
>>> > Author: Aris
>>> > Co-authors: D Margaux, G.
>>> >
>>> > Enact a new power 3.0 rule, entitled "Side-Game Suspension", with the
>>> > following text:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >1. The Spaaace Rules are defined to be Rules 2588, 2589, 2590, 2591,
>>> > 2592,
>>> > 2593 and 2594.
>>> >
>>> >2. The Politics Rules are defined to be Rules 2533, 2534, 2535, 2536,
>>> > 2537,
>>> > 2538, 2539, 2540, 2586, 2542, and 2543.
>>> >
>>> >3. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Spaaace Rules are
>>> > suspended and
>>> > have no force or effect until Spaaace is Revived.
>>> >
>>> >4. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Politics Rules are
>>> > suspended and have no force or effect until Politics is Revived.
>>> >
>>> >5. A player CAN with 2 support Revive Spaaace (unless Spaaace has
>>> > already
>>> > been Revived); that player is thereby installed into the office
>>> > of Astronomor.
>>> >
>>> >6. A player CAN with 2 support Revive Politics (unless Politics has
>>> > already
>>> > been Revived); that player is thereby installed into the office of
>>> > Clork.
>>> >
>>> >7. If Politics and Spaaace have both been Revived, then any player CAN
>>> > cause
>>> > this Rule to repeal itself with Notice.
>>> >
>>> >8. Any player CAN with Agoran Consent trigger this Rule. When this
>>> > Rule is
>>> > triggered, the following events happen in order: (a) the Politics
>>> > Rules are
>>> > automatically repealed in ascending numerical order (unless
>>> > Politics has been
>>> > Revived), (b) the Spaaace Rules are automatically repealed in
>>> > ascending
>>> > numerical order (unless Spaaace has been Revived), and (c) this
>>> > Rule is
>>> > automatically repealed.
>>> >
>> --
>> D. Margaux
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent Proposal
This is a good suggestion, Aris. I withdraw my prior intent proposals and resubmit this proposal: / Title: Intent is Important (v1.1) AI: 2 Author: D Margaux Coauthor: Aris [Comment: I don’t think we should be fining people for actions unless they knew or should know they are violating the rules (what the criminal law calls a “guilty mind”).] In Rule 2531, in the list that follows this text: “Any attempt to levy a fine is INEFFECTIVE if:” Add the following text as paragraph 3: “(3) the perp likely did not know and reasonably should not be expected to have known that e violated the rules as a result of the action or inaction that is the reason for the levy;” And renumber the rest of the list accordingly. / On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 7:26 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Maybe try “does not appear to have known”? Otherwise, the gamestate depends > on someone’s actual mental state, which is impossible to determine given > the limits of current technology. > > -Aris > > On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 4:24 PM D. Margaux wrote: > > > Crap. > > > > I withdraw that proposal. I resubmit it with AI = 2 and author D. > Margaux. > > > > > On May 26, 2019, at 7:23 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > > > > > I don’t think we should be fining people for actions unless they knew > or > > should know they are violating the rules (what the criminal law calls a > > “guilty mind”). > > > > > > I submit a proposal: > > > > > > Title: Intent is Important > > > > > > In Rule 2531, in the list that follows this text: > > > > > > “Any attempt to levy a fine is INEFFECTIVE if:” > > > > > > Add the following text as paragraph 3: > > > > > > “(3) the perp did not know and reasonably should not be expected to > have > > known that e violated the rules as a result of the action or inaction > that > > is the reason for the levy;” > > > > > > And renumber the rest of the list accordingly. > > > -- D. Margaux
Re: BUS: Intent Proposal
Crap. I withdraw that proposal. I resubmit it with AI = 2 and author D. Margaux. > On May 26, 2019, at 7:23 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > I don’t think we should be fining people for actions unless they knew or > should know they are violating the rules (what the criminal law calls a > “guilty mind”). > > I submit a proposal: > > Title: Intent is Important > > In Rule 2531, in the list that follows this text: > > “Any attempt to levy a fine is INEFFECTIVE if:” > > Add the following text as paragraph 3: > > “(3) the perp did not know and reasonably should not be expected to have > known that e violated the rules as a result of the action or inaction that is > the reason for the levy;” > > And renumber the rest of the list accordingly.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)
I CFJ barring Aris the following statement: “The imposition of the Cold Hand of
Justice in the below message was EFFECTIVE.”
> On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 6:43 PM Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> Alright. There was a clear rule violation here, as the information in the
> report was inaccurate. The violative conduct was undertaken for the good of
> the game, but there were also other options available (proposal, or
> ratification without objection, which would have been unlikely to cause any
> problems done correctly). Ordinarily, a rule violation for the good of the
> game would be a forgiveable one blot fine. Under the circumstances though,
> some additional penalty is warranted for failing to adequately consider and
> discuss options that would have avoided violating the rules.
>
> I act on behalf of D. Margaux to impose the Cold Hand of Justice on D.
> Margaux, penalizing em with a forgiveable fine of 2 blots. The required
> words are {optimize, preferentially, consider, supersubtilize,
> adjudication, law, good, bad, future, duty}.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 2:19 PM D. Margaux wrote:
>
> > I was concerned that ratification without objection might inadvertently
> > break something outside of those subgames. In contrast, issuing blank Clork
> > and Astronomor reports would not risk causing something to break outside
> > those games. It would be self-contained.
> >
> > On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 5:12 PM Aris Merchant <
> > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I don’t know what the implication of that is for the sentencing, but I
> > > don’t think I’m going to wait. I’d prefer to resolve it now and avoid the
> > > ambiguity.
> > >
> > > Why did you use self-ratification, rather than something else like
> > > ratification without objection?
> > >
> > > -Aris
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 2:09 PM D. Margaux
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > It may be worthwhile to wait a couple days. If the reports self-ratify
> > > > without any claim of error, then the information therein will be
> > > > retroactively accurate... I think?
> > > >
> > > > > On May 25, 2019, at 9:31 PM, Aris Merchant <
> > > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I accept. I'll have to read up on the relevant rules, and I don't
> > have
> > > > > the time at the moment. That said, this case is pretty simple, so
> > I'll
> > > > > probably have a verdict in the next day or two.
> > > > >
> > > > > -The Arbitor
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 3:54 PM D. Margaux
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> If the H. Arbitor agrees, then I authorize the holder of the Office
> > of
> > > > >> Arbitor to act on my behalf to investigate and conclude the
> > > > investigation
> > > > >> of the finger pointed against me in the message quoted below, and
> > for
> > > no
> > > > >> other purpose.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 6:02 PM omd wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 3:20 AM D. Margaux > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> The below reports are false. The reason for ratifying them is
> > > because
> > > > >>> the games are defunct and because it’s too hard to figure out what
> > > the
> > > > >>> gamestate of either of them is.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I deputise for Astronomor to publish this report: {there are no
> > > > entities
> > > > >>> in existence for which the Astronomor is the recordkeepor other
> > than
> > > > those
> > > > >>> created directly by the Rules. All switches for which the
> > Astronomor
> > > is
> > > > >>> recordkeepor have their default value.}
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I deputise for Clork to publish this report: {there are no
> > entities
> > > in
> > > > >>> existence for which the Clork is the recordkeepor other than those
> > > > directly
> > > > >>> created by the Rules. All switches for which the Clork is
> > > recordkeepor
> > > > have
> > > > >>> their default value.}
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I Point my Finger at D. Margaux for violating rule 2143 by
> > publishing
> > > > >>> information that is inaccurate within two documents purporting to
> > be
> > > > >>> two offices' weekly reports. (The documents don't explicitly
> > purport
> > > > >>> to be *weekly* reports, but this can be reasonably inferred from
> > the
> > > > >>> attempt to deputise to publish them.)
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> D. Margaux
> > > >
> > >
> > --
> > D. Margaux
> >
BUS: Intent Proposal
I don’t think we should be fining people for actions unless they knew or should know they are violating the rules (what the criminal law calls a “guilty mind”). I submit a proposal: Title: Intent is Important In Rule 2531, in the list that follows this text: “Any attempt to levy a fine is INEFFECTIVE if:” Add the following text as paragraph 3: “(3) the perp did not know and reasonably should not be expected to have known that e violated the rules as a result of the action or inaction that is the reason for the levy;” And renumber the rest of the list accordingly.
Re: BUS: CFJ 3729 assigned to D. Margaux
TRUE. Under R2483, coins can be owned by Agora, players, and contracts. Nichdel
owned 30 coins. Nichdel was a player, and so could own coins, but then became a
non-player, and at that point could not. When e was deregistered, the coins
became owned by a non-player person, and where therefore destroyed by R2576.
Nichdel did not cease to exist, so the coins never lacked an owner and the Lost
& Found never became the owner of those coins.
> On Jun 2, 2019, at 6:16 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> Sorry for not getting to this sooner.
>
>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 7:09 PM James Cook wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 01:39, James Cook wrote:
>>> Having given notice, I hereby deregister nichdel. RIP.
>>
>> CFJ: the Lost and Found department owns no more than 87 Coins.
>
> This is CFJ 3729. I assign it to D. Margaux.
>> Argument:
>>
>> I think the CFJ is TRUE. I'm calling it because the 2019-02-18
>> Treasuror weekly report implies otherwise:
>>> Lost & Found + 30c. 2019-02-03 21:25 Deregistration of pokes
>>> pokes - 30c. 2019-02-03 21:25 Deregistration
>> I can't figure out why that "+ 30c." would have happened.
>>
>> R2576 says that the Lost and Found Department owns things that "would
>> otherwise lack an owner", but I don't think there was any point at
>> which {the 30 Coins formerly owned by nichdel} existed and lacked an
>> owner. Even if we imagine an instant of time between when nichdel
>> ceased to be a Player and when eir 30 Coins were destroyed by the
>> first paragraph of R2576, nothing in the Rules says that at that
>> instant nichdel could not own those Coins, so the Coins did not lack
>> an owner. After the 30 Coins were destroyed, those 30 Coins do not
>> exist, so there likewise aren't 30 Coins that lack an owner at that
>> time either.
>>
>> Evidence:
>>
>> From the Treasuror weekly report published 2019-05-09, which has
>> self-ratified by now:
>>> 87Lost and Found Department
>>
>> From R2576, "Ownership":
>> "If an asset's backing document restricts its ownership to a class of
>> entities, then that asset ... is destroyed if it is owned by an entity
>> outside that class."
>> "If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it is owned by the Lost
>> and Found Department."
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Temporary Deputy-ADoP] Initiation of Election for Prime Minister
I cause L to ENDORSE D. Margaux, and I myself vote conditionally as follows:
G., if G. has awarded D. Margaux a Gray Ribbon;
otherwise {Aris, Corona}.
> On Jun 3, 2019, at 9:22 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> Ah, sorry, I just checked, and I registered 90 minutes too late to vote in
> this election. Probably for the best anyway as I still don't really know who
> people are.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
>> On 6/3/19 2:10 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> I'm happy to! My platform was that I was working to resolve the
>> inactivity crisis of the time [1]. It's less of a crisis now (though
>> more offices than usual are still empty), partially because of my
>> work. I sent the message I linked, and I've also taken on the duties
>> of the Arbitor as I said I would. G. on the other hand resigned from
>> all of eir offices, making the crisis worse. I'm not blaming em for
>> needing time off, just suggesting that I'm currently the better
>> candidate.
>>
>> [1]
>> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2019-April/053804.html
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:09 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>>> My vote is still up for grabs, if I'm eligible (which I think I am).
>>> Sorry again, but I am too new to know everything you would wish to
>>> include in your platform. Could you give me a short summary so that I
>>> don't have to trawl through lots of messages?
>>>
>>>> On 6/2/19 10:35 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>>> I vote [Aris, G.].
>>>>
>>>> Why is no one voting for me? As far as I can tell, I have a stronger
>>>> platform (well, at least I had a platform) and am currently more active.
>>>> I’m really confused, TBH.
>>>>
>>>> -Aris
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:30 PM James Cook wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> In the ongoing election for Prime Minister, I vote [G., Aris].
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 12:29, D Margaux wrote:
>>>>>> I temporarily deputise for ADoP to initiate an election for Prime
>>>>> Minister (for reals this time).
>>>>>> The valid options are G., Corona, and Aris.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The vote collector is the ADoP and the voting method is instant runoff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jun 2, 2019, at 4:56 AM, Reuben Staley
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> JUDGEMENT OF A CFJ WITH NO ID
>>>>>>> ===
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whereas there is not much I feel I can add to the Caller's Arguments,
>>>>> I accept them and judge this CFJ TRUE.
>>>>>>>> On 5/30/19 12:57 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>>>>>>>> I assign this CFJ to Trigon (the only judge who is both eligible and
>>>>> not an interested party).
>>>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>>>>> From: D Margaux
>>>>>>>>> Date: May 28, 2019 at 9:49:13 AM EDT
>>>>>>>>> To: Agora Business
>>>>>>>>> Subject: CFJ re Prime Minister Election
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I call for judgement, and submit to the Referee (because the Arbitor
>>>>> is an interested party), the following statement: “The ADoP did not
>>>>> EFFECTIVELY commence any election for the office of Prime Minister on 19
>>>>> May 2019.”
>>>>>>>>> Caller’s Arguments:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Under Rule 104, a notice initiating an Agoran decision is “invalid”
>>>>> unless it contains “[a] clear description of the valid options.” On 19
>>>>> May
>>>>> 2019, the ADoP sent two messages purporting to initiate an election for
>>>>> Prime Minister, but neither of those messages clearly described the valid
>>>>> options as required by rule. Therefore no PM election was commenced.
>>>>>>>>> In the first attempt,[1] Murphy stated that “the valid options are
>>>>> the candidates (G. and Corona).” That did not clearly state the valid
>>>>> options because Aris was also a candidate.
>>>>>>>>> In the second attempt,[2] Murphy stated that “Aris may also be a
>>>>> candidate” and that, “[i]f voting for Prime Minister is not yet open, then
>>>>> I open it (details as below except Aris is also a candidate).” That
>>>>> message did not clearly identify the valid options, because it stated only
>>>>> that Aris *may* be a candidate, not that e *was* a candidate.
>>>>> Additionally,
>>>>> that message initiated an election *conditioned* on the old election being
>>>>> invalid; as a result, a reasonable Agoran reading that message in
>>>>> isolation
>>>>> would be unable to determine whether the PM election was initiated by
>>>>> message [1] or [2], and therefore could not know what the “valid options”
>>>>> were. In my view, that means that message [2] did not contain “[a] clear
>>>>> description of the valid options.”
>>>>>>>>> Because neither message clearly described the valid options, both
>>>>> messages failed to initiate an election under Rule 104.
>>>>>>>>> ——
>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33821.html
>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33823.html
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Trigon
>>> --
>>> Jason Cobb
>>>
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8178-8179
I vote and cause L to vote as follows: > 8178 Trigon 3.0 n't PRESENT > 8179 D Margaux, Aris 2.0 Intent is Important (v1.1) FOR
BUS: CFJ re Prime Minister Election
I call for judgement, and submit to the Referee (because the Arbitor is an interested party), the following statement: “The ADoP did not EFFECTIVELY commence any election for the office of Prime Minister on 19 May 2019.” Caller’s Arguments: Under Rule 104, a notice initiating an Agoran decision is “invalid” unless it contains “[a] clear description of the valid options.” On 19 May 2019, the ADoP sent two messages purporting to initiate an election for Prime Minister, but neither of those messages clearly described the valid options as required by rule. Therefore no PM election was commenced. In the first attempt,[1] Murphy stated that “the valid options are the candidates (G. and Corona).” That did not clearly state the valid options because Aris was also a candidate. In the second attempt,[2] Murphy stated that “Aris may also be a candidate” and that, “[i]f voting for Prime Minister is not yet open, then I open it (details as below except Aris is also a candidate).” That message did not clearly identify the valid options, because it stated only that Aris *may* be a candidate, not that e *was* a candidate. Additionally, that message initiated an election *conditioned* on the old election being invalid; as a result, a reasonable Agoran reading that message in isolation would be unable to determine whether the PM election was initiated by message [1] or [2], and therefore could not know what the “valid options” were. In my view, that means that message [2] did not contain “[a] clear description of the valid options.” Because neither message clearly described the valid options, both messages failed to initiate an election under Rule 104. —— [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33821.html [2] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33823.html
Re: BUS: Accusation
I agree that the rules were probably violated. Rule 2143 forbids an officer from publishing information that is “inaccurate or misleading while performing an official duty.“ In the cited message,[1] Murphy, as ADoP, purported to commence an election for Prime Minister stating that “the valid options are the candidates (G. and Corona).” I believe Aris was also a valid option. Strictly speaking, Murphy’s statement was not “inaccurate”: G. and Corona were candidates, and the statement did not say that G. and Corona were the *only* valid options. Nevertheless, the statement was “misleading,” because a reasonable Agoran would understand the statement to include an exclusive list of candidates. The statement was made “while performing an official duty.” Under Rule 2154, the ADoP was required to initiate an election promptly after the close of the voting period. Under Rule 107, Murphy’s message failed to initiate the Prime Minister election because it lacked “[a] clear description of the valid options”; nevertheless, I interpret Rule 2143 as prohibiting false or misleading statements made when attempting to perform an official duty, even if the falsity or misleading nature of the statement renders the attempt invalid. It is common for there to be inadvertent errors made in performing official duties, and it seems rare to levy fines for such errors in the absence of bad faith. There is no evident bad faith here. I levy a fine on Murphy of 1 blot. ——— [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33821.html > On May 21, 2019, at 9:12 AM, D. Margaux wrote: > > >> On May 19, 2019, at 11:06 PM, Aris Merchant >> wrote: >> >> I point my finger at Murphy, the Honorable ADoP, for committing a >> violation of the provision of Rule 2143, "Official Reports and >> Duties", stating that "A person SHALL NOT publish information that is >> inaccurate or misleading while performing an official duty"; to wit, e >> misstated the persons that are candidates in the PM election, >> excluding my candidacy in the same. > > MESSAGE FROM THE > OFFICE OF THE REFEREE > == > > To assist it in resolving this Pointed Finger, the Office of Referee hereby > requests that Aris please (1) quote the text of any particular statement(s) > that e believes violated the rule and (2) identify whether e believes that > specific text was “inaccurate,” “misleading,” or both, and why. > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal 8177
CoE denied, with apologies for the confusion I caused. Additionally, I do not think the conditional vote “required the report ratification to go through before the voting period ended”; did it? If the empty reports self-ratify tomorrow, wouldn’t your vote still resolve to FOR? That is because, upon self-ratification, the Clork and Astronomor switches would revert to their default values at the time of the report publication, which would be before the end of the voting period. So I could have waited until report self-ratification and assessed the votes the same way on Wednesday (but didn’t have to because of my ratification without objection). > On May 28, 2019, at 2:17 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Oops, don't mind me - I see the parallel attempts now this is sooo > confusing... > >> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 11:12 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> CoE: My conditional vote quoted below required the report >> ratification to go through before the voting period ended (I mis-read >> D. Margaux's ratification intent as being without objection, under >> which it could have been completed in time). I think this makes the >> votes come out as a REJECTED. >> >> "I change my vote on 8177 to conditional: FOR if all of the switches >> for which either the Astronomor or Clork are recordkeepor are at their >> default value; AGAINST otherwise. >> >> On behalf of Telnaior, Telnaior changes er vote on 8177 to >> conditional: FOR if all of the switches for which either the >> Astronomor or Clork are >> recordkeepor are at their default value; AGAINST otherwise." >> >>> On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 7:39 PM D. Margaux wrote: >>> >>> I resolve the Agoran decision of whether to adopt the below proposal(s) as >>> follows: >>> >>> Result IDAuthor(s) AITitle >>> ------- >>> ADO 8177 Aris, [1] 3.0 Side-Game Suspension Act (v3) >>> >>> [1] D. Margaux, G. >>> >>> Proposal 8177 >>> === >>> FOR: D. Margaux, L, Murphy, Falsifian, VJ Rada, G., Telnaior >>> PRESENT: ATMunn, omd >>> AGAINST: >>> Ballots: 9 (quorum 3) >>> AI (F/A): 21/0 (all voters have 3 strength) >>> Outcome: ADOPTED >>> >>> The full text of the aforementioned adopted proposal(s) is included below. >>> >>> // >>> ID: 8177 >>> Title: Side-Game Suspension Act (v3) >>> Adoption index: 3.0 >>> Author: Aris >>> Co-authors: D Margaux, G. >>> >>> Enact a new power 3.0 rule, entitled "Side-Game Suspension", with the >>> following text: >>> >>> >>> 1. The Spaaace Rules are defined to be Rules 2588, 2589, 2590, 2591, 2592, >>>2593 and 2594. >>> >>> 2. The Politics Rules are defined to be Rules 2533, 2534, 2535, 2536, 2537, >>>2538, 2539, 2540, 2586, 2542, and 2543. >>> >>> 3. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Spaaace Rules are suspended >>> and >>>have no force or effect until Spaaace is Revived. >>> >>> 4. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Politics Rules are >>>suspended and have no force or effect until Politics is Revived. >>> >>> 5. A player CAN with 2 support Revive Spaaace (unless Spaaace has already >>>been Revived); that player is thereby installed into the office >>> of Astronomor. >>> >>> 6. A player CAN with 2 support Revive Politics (unless Politics has already >>>been Revived); that player is thereby installed into the office of Clork. >>> >>> 7. If Politics and Spaaace have both been Revived, then any player CAN cause >>>this Rule to repeal itself with Notice. >>> >>> 8. Any player CAN with Agoran Consent trigger this Rule. When this Rule is >>>triggered, the following events happen in order: (a) the Politics Rules >>> are >>>automatically repealed in ascending numerical order (unless >>> Politics has been >>>Revived), (b) the Spaaace Rules are automatically repealed in ascending >>>numerical order (unless Spaaace has been Revived), and (c) this Rule is >>>automatically repealed.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Referee Fix
Good catch twg. I rescind the initial proposal in this chain, and submit this one: Title: Referee CAN Impose Fines (v1.1) Author: D. Margaux Co-Authors: Falsifian, twg AI 1.7 Text: Amend Rule 2478 to replace this text: “When a player Points a Finger, the investigator SHALL investigate the allegation and, in a timely fashion, SHALL conclude the investigation by:” With this text: “When a player Points a Finger, the investigator SHALL investigate the allegation and CAN, and in a timely fashion SHALL, conclude the investigation by:” On Jun 2, 2019, at 7:06 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: I believe this needs to be "and CAN, and in a timely fashion SHALL, conclude the investigation". Otherwise, the "in a timely fashion" would also apply to the CAN, so that the Referee COULD NOT conclude an investigation if it were overdue. I think. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Sunday, June 2, 2019 3:36 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > I submit the following proposal: > > Title: Referee CAN Impose Fines > Author: D. Margaux > Co-Authors: Falsifian > AI 1.7 > Text: > Amend Rule 2478 to replace this text: > > “When a player Points a Finger, the investigator SHALL investigate the > allegation and, in a timely fashion, SHALL conclude the investigation by:” > > With this text: > > “When a player Points a Finger, the investigator SHALL investigate the > allegation and, in a timely fashion, CAN and SHALL conclude the investigation > by:”
BUS: Fwd: CFJ re Prime Minister Election
I assign this CFJ to Trigon (the only judge who is both eligible and not an interested party). Begin forwarded message: > From: D Margaux > Date: May 28, 2019 at 9:49:13 AM EDT > To: Agora Business > Subject: CFJ re Prime Minister Election > > I call for judgement, and submit to the Referee (because the Arbitor is an > interested party), the following statement: “The ADoP did not EFFECTIVELY > commence any election for the office of Prime Minister on 19 May 2019.” > > Caller’s Arguments: > > Under Rule 104, a notice initiating an Agoran decision is “invalid” unless it > contains “[a] clear description of the valid options.” On 19 May 2019, the > ADoP sent two messages purporting to initiate an election for Prime Minister, > but neither of those messages clearly described the valid options as required > by rule. Therefore no PM election was commenced. > > In the first attempt,[1] Murphy stated that “the valid options are the > candidates (G. and Corona).” That did not clearly state the valid options > because Aris was also a candidate. > > In the second attempt,[2] Murphy stated that “Aris may also be a candidate” > and that, “[i]f voting for Prime Minister is not yet open, then I open it > (details as below except Aris is also a candidate).” That message did not > clearly identify the valid options, because it stated only that Aris *may* be > a candidate, not that e *was* a candidate. Additionally, that message > initiated an election *conditioned* on the old election being invalid; as a > result, a reasonable Agoran reading that message in isolation would be unable > to determine whether the PM election was initiated by message [1] or [2], and > therefore could not know what the “valid options” were. In my view, that > means that message [2] did not contain “[a] clear description of the valid > options.” > > Because neither message clearly described the valid options, both messages > failed to initiate an election under Rule 104. > > —— > [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33821.html > > [2] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33823.html >
BUS: Referee Fix
I submit the following proposal: Title: Referee CAN Impose Fines Author: D. Margaux Co-Authors: Falsifian AI 1.7 Text: Amend Rule 2478 to replace this text: “When a player Points a Finger, the investigator SHALL investigate the allegation and, in a timely fashion, SHALL conclude the investigation by:” With this text: “When a player Points a Finger, the investigator SHALL investigate the allegation and, in a timely fashion, CAN and SHALL conclude the investigation by:”
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8180-8187
On Jun 13, 2019, at 5:39 PM, omd wrote: >> 8181 D Margaux, [1]1.7 Referee CAN Impose Fines (v1.1) > PRESENT. I initially read the CAN as attaching to the preceding SHALL > rather than the following one. When read as intended, it authorizes > the Referee to perform two actions. One is to "announce" the Finger > Pointing to be Shenanigans, which e doesn't need authorization to do. > The other is imposing the Cold Hand of Justice, which e does need > authorization for, but... even with this proposal, I don't think > anything states *how* e can impose the CHoJ (i.e. by announcement). Hmm, I don’t think our recent CFJs have addressed whether the Referee CAN impose the CHoJ by announcement. This logic implies that e CANNOT, and I think I agree with it. What a mess. I CFJ the following: “When the Referee MUST impose the Cold Hand of Justice, e CAN do so by announcement.”
Re: BUS: Abetting Heresy (more finger-pointing)
Finger pointing is well taken. As the proposer of the contract I am more culpable for the abetting of heresy here. I fine myself 3 blots, and fine Murphy 1 blot. I spend 7 coins to perform the ritual. > On Jun 13, 2019, at 12:32 AM, James Cook wrote: > >> On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 14:19, D. Margaux wrote: >> CFJ 3730 JUDGEMENT - FALSE > > Thanks, that's a nice explanation. The below case might be different > though, because a set of players is clearly attached to the MUST. If I > understand right, your judgement might depend on the fact that the > rules didn't expressly say that players must perform The Ritual. > > I Point my Finger at D. Margaux and then at Murphy, in each case for > violating this provision in their contract called the Church of the > Ritual this week of June 10 through 16: > > "The faithful MUST prevent all players from becoming the heretic; > failure to do so is the crime of Abetting Heresy." > > Details: > * D. Margaux (re-)proposed this contract on May 20. > * Murphy accepted it later on May 20. > * G. performed the ritual on June 10, and was the first to perform it > this week, and according to the text of the contract, thereby became > the heretic: "...the first heathen to perform The Ritual in that > Agoran week is installed as the heretic".
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8180-8187
> On Jun 15, 2019, at 5:49 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > I remind the Assessor that Falsifian is owed the Patent Title MacGyver for > Proposal 8164. That's right! I intend with 2 Agoran consent to award to Falsifian the patent title MacGyver.
Re: BUS: Re: kwang
Oh yeah. I kwang earn 5 coins for assessing a proposal. On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 4:55 PM Reuben Staley wrote: > I earn 5 coins for the publication of the SLR for the twenty-fifth week > of 2019. > > I earn ciel(9-0)*1 = 9 coins for the passage of Proposal 8180. > > On 6/16/19 2:47 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > > I earn 5 coins for the publication of the SLR for the twenty-fourth week > > of 2019. > > > > I earn 5 coins for the publication of the FLR for June 2019. > > > > I earn 5 coins for the publication of the judgement of CFJ 3737. > > > > On 6/6/19 3:36 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > >> I earn 5 coins for the publication of the SLR for the twenty-third > >> week of 2019. > >> > >> On 6/2/19 3:01 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: > >>> I earn 5 coins for the judgement of CFJ 3728. > >>> > >>> I earn 5 coins for my most recent CFJ judgement. > >>> > >>> On 5/31/19 5:50 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > >>>> I earn 5 coins for the publication of the SLR for the twenty-second > >>>> week of 2019. > >>>> > >>>> On 5/26/19 4:49 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > >>>>> I earn 5 coins for the publication of the SLR for the twenty-first > >>>>> week of 2019. > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > > -- > Trigon > -- D. Margaux
BUS: Re: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8180-8187
I earn (8-1)*1.7 = 12 coins for this proposal > On Jun 22, 2019, at 2:43 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > PROPOSAL 8181 (Referee CAN Impose Fines (v1.1)) > FOR: R. Lee#, D. Margaux, L, Aris, Falsifian, Jason Cobb, G., twg+ > AGAINST: Walker > PRESENT: Owen > AI (F/A): 21/3 (AI=1.7) > BALLOTS: 10 (quorum 9) > OUTCOME: ADOPTED
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8180-8187
I vote and cause L to vote as follows: 8180 Trigon, D Margaux 1.0 Paying our Assessor FOR 8181 D Margaux, [1]1.7 Referee CAN Impose Fines (v1.1) FOR 8182 Jason Cobb3.0 Add value to zombies FOR 8183 V.J. Rada, Tiger 3.0 Regulated Actions Reform FOR 8184 G.3.0 power-limit precedence FOR 8185 Trigon3.0 OUGHT we? AGAINST 8186 Jason Cobb3.0 Minor currency fixes FOR 8187 Jason Cobb3.0 Not so indestructible now, eh? FOR
BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3730 assigned to D. Margaux
CFJ 3730 JUDGEMENT - FALSE Under Rule 2596 (the Ritual), “[a]ny player CAN perform the Ritual by paying a fee of 7 coins,” and “[t]he Ritual MUST be performed at least once in every Agoran week.” Under Rule 2152 (Mother, May I?), “MUST” means that “[f]ailing to perform the described action violates the rule in question.” During one particular Agoran week, the “described action” (the Ritual) was not “performed,” and a player pointed eir finger at all other active players for allegedly violating the rules by their failure to perform the Ritual. The question is whether the Cold Hand of Justice CAN (and MUST) be imposed on those players consistent with Rule 2531 (Referee Accountability). Under Rule 2531, a fine CANNOT Be imposed if (among other things): > (2) it attempts to levy a fine on a person for an action or inaction which e > (more likely than not) did not commit; [or] > > (3) it attempts to levy a fine for an action or inaction which is not > prohibited by the rules . . . . In my capacity as Referee, I offered a proto-decision on this issue.[1] At that time, my opinion was that the players' "inaction" caused a rule violation, and, as a result, the CHoJ could be imposed consistent with Rule 2531(2) and (3). I now believe that reasoning is wrong. Each players' "inaction" was a necessary (but not sufficient) cause of a violation of the rules. But the Rules do not prohibit *causing* a violation of the Rules. Indeed, there are a great many actions that are necessary causes for any particular rule violation. For example, G.'s action proposing the adoption of The Ritual rule was a necessary cause of the violation of that Rule. It would be contrary to the best interests of the game for causation of a rule violation to be considered itself a violation of the rules.[2] Indeed, the Rules expressly prohibit a player from causing a zombie to violate the rules (Masterminding), and that demonstrates that the Rules can differentiate between violating a rule and causing a violation of a rule. In sum, although in this instance the individual and collective "inaction" of the players did *cause* a rule violation, that inaction was not itself directly prohibited by the Rules. As a result, under Rule 2531(3), the CHoJ CAN'T and MUSTN'T be imposed, because doing so would "attempt[] to levy a fine for an . . . inaction which is not prohibited by the rules." Judged FALSE. Separately, in my capacity as Referee, I hereby declare the pointed fingers at issue to be Shenanigans. --- [1]https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg46618.html [2] It is interesting to note that, when other legal systems prohibit "causing" harm, they need to differentiate between culpable and non-culpable causation. For example, in the American legal system (the one I am most familiar with), a person cannot be held liable in tort for being a necessary or sufficient cause of a harm, unless the person violated a legal duty toward the harmed person and that the cause was "proximate" to the harm (a fuzzy concept that mostly means that it was "foreseeable" that harm would result from the action or inaction at issue). The fact that Agora has no similar concepts is suggestive, but in no way determinative, that Agoran law does not prohibit the mere *causing* of a rule violation. On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:16 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > I assign CFJ 3730 (below) to D. Margaux. > > === CFJ 3730 === > >If no player activates Rule 2596 'The Ritual' in a certain week, >all players who are players that week have violated the rule, >which provides that (1) "Any player CAN perform The Ritual" and >(2) "The Ritual MUST be performed at least once in every Agoran >week. > > ========== > > Caller:V.J. Rada > > Judge: D. Margaux > > ========== > > History: > > Called by V.J. Rada: 06 Jun 2019 00:49:19 > Assigned to D. Margaux: (as of this message) > > == > > Caller's Arguments: > > I suspect that the text is not clear and therefore the four-part test > must be applied. I believe it is in the best interest of the game to > impose criminal liability for the violation of the Rules as much as > possible. I also believe that it is perfectly reasonable as a matter of > text to impose criminal liability on "any player" who by failing to act > in "performing the ritual" (despite being able to do so) leads t
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8180-8187
I change my vote, and cause L to change eir vote, on the below listed proposal to AGAINST (shunning heretic) > 8184 G.3.0 power-limit precedence AGAINST -- D. Margaux
Re: BUS: Re: [Arbitor] CFJ 3733 assigned to G.
Likewise -- 5 coins to me for the judgement I judged yesterday. On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 12:14 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 6/13/2019 8:48 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Judgement in CFJ 3733: > > I earn 5 coins for this judgement. > -- D. Margaux
Re: BUS: finger point
This finger pointing is well taken. For the reasons described in G.'s message, Aris is fined 1 blot. On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 9:54 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I point my finger at Aris for failure to publish a weekly Promotor's report > in the week ending Jun-9. > > (not pointing for the sake of the report itself, but over 14 days since the > last distribution - with higher activity would be good to stay on top of > those!) >
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report
I resolve this by reference to CFJ 3734 On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 4:24 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > Under Rule 2201, I issue a challenge to the above report: pending > resolution of CFJ 3734, it is unknown whether players CAN or CANNOT > expunge Blots. Thus the listed totals may be incorrect. > > Jason Cobb > > On 6/12/19 4:18 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > I publish the below report. I claim a reward of 5 coins for publishing > it. > > > > *** > > > > Referee’s Weekly Report > > Date of This Report: 2019-06-12 > > Date of Last Report: 2019-06-03 > > > > BLOT HOLDINGS > > === > > This section self-ratifies. > > > > BlotsPlayer > > --- > > 5twg > > 2V.J. Rada > > 3Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > 1L. > > 1Murphy > > 1Aris > > > > BlotsFugitive > > - > > 8Corona > > 4Kenyon > > > > RECENT CHANGES > > == > > This section does not self-ratify. > > > > 2019-06-03 twg expunges 1 blot > > 2019-06-03 V.J. Rada expunges 1 blot > > 2019-06-10 twg expunges 1 blot > > 2019-06-12 Aris fined 1 blot > > > > RECENT FINGER POINTS & INVESTIGATION RESULTS > > = > > This section does not self-ratify. > > > > 2019-06-11 G. pointed eir finger at Aris for failure to publish a > > Promotor's weekly report. RESULT: Finger pointing was well taken, > > and Aris was fined 1 blot. > > > > 2019-06-03 Falsifian pointed eir finger at omd, Aris, Gaelan, G., > > Cuddle Beam, Trigon, Murphy, ATMunn, twg, D. Margaux, Jacob Arduino, > > Falsifian, Bernie, Rance, o, Jason Cobb, Walker, PSS, Corona, V.J. > > Rada, L, Hālian, Tarhalindur, Telnaior, and Baron von Vaderham. > > RESULT: The finger pointing was declared Shenanigans and no fines > > were assessed, for the reasons stated in the judgement of CFJ 3730 > > issued 12 June 2019. > -- D. Margaux
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8180-8187
On Jun 15, 2019, at 8:53 AM, D. Margaux wrote: >> On Jun 15, 2019, at 5:49 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >> >> I remind the Assessor that Falsifian is owed the Patent Title MacGyver for >> Proposal 8164. > > That's right! I intend with 2 Agoran consent to award to Falsifian the patent > title MacGyver. Hearing no objection, and with several players in support, I do belatedly award the patent title MacGyver to Falsifian.
Re: BUS: The ruleset is too long so
> On Jun 19, 2019, at 11:22 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > I intend with Agoran Consent to trigger Rule 2598, "Side-Game Suspension". I support
BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
I issue the below judgement and claim a reward of 5 coins for issuing it. *** Judge Trigon recused emself believing that no valid judgement could be entered in this CFJ.[1] I was subsequently assigned to judge it. Judge Trigon believed that no LEGAL judgement could be assigned to this case for reasons explained in an email chain reproduced in a footnote here.[2] Judge Trigon's recusal was premised on eir belief that an action does not necessarily become regulated when a contract states that it "SHALL NOT" be performed. After much consideration, I disagree with that conclusion, and instead agree with contrary arguements offered by R. Lee and others. In particular, an action is regulated if its "performance" is "limited" by Rule. A "limitation" on "performance" does not necessarily mean a limitation on the *possibility* of performance of the action. Instead, it can also refer to a limitation on the LEGALLY of the performance of the action. In this CFJ, a hypothetical contract would forbids parties from breathing, and the rules would prohibit a party from violating that contract. The rules would therefore forbid a party to the contract from breathing (but not anyone else). The contract at issue, and the rules that create contracts generally, have limited the LEGAL performance of breathing when done by a party to the hypothetical contract. As a result, the act of breathing would be regulated when taken by a party to the contract. That said, the contract cannot affect the LEGALITY or POSSIBILITY of an action taken by a non-party. As a result, the contract would not limit breathing by non-parties. Breathing by other people generally would not be limited in any way, only breathing by parties to the contract. Therefore it is FALSE that breathing generally would be regulated; only breathing by certain people. FALSE - [1] Judge Trigon recused emself in this message. > On Jun 17, 2019, at 8:43 PM, Reubejn Staley wrote: > > I recuse myself from this case. I really don't think there's any LEGAL way to > resolve this. [2] The email chain in question is reproduced here: On Jun 17, 2019, at 2:29 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > Both can be easily proven factually incorrect. > > Breathing is unregulated because the contract clearly does not allow, enable, > or permit its performance, and the "SHALL NOT" in the contract does not limit > its performance. > > The contract does prohibit breathing; one only needs to look in a dictionary > to prove such things. > > To deny either of these would be to publish a factual falsehood, which might > in itself constitute a violation of Rule 2471 "No Faking". > >> On 6/17/19 12:20 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: >> You have two options that I can see (without being guilty of a crime). Either >> - Breathing is a regulated action, or >> - The contract does not prohibit breathing. >> Jason Cobb >>> On 6/17/19 2:20 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: >>> Ah, indeed! So we have our conflict. >>> >>> I SHALL NOT interpret the rules so as to proscribe unregulated actions. >>> >>> The contract mandates a proscription on breathing, which is an unregulated >>> action. >>> >>> By these two facts, I cannot come to the obviously correct conclusion that >>> the contract proscribes an unregulated action without breaking rule 2152. >>> >>> There really is no way out of this, is there? >>> On 6/17/19 9:32 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On 6/17/2019 8:10 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: > Does a "SHALL NOT" really count as "proscription"? I reiterate that, > assuming a player has been given permission elsewhere, e still CAN > perform an action that the rules state e SHALL NOT perform. From the dictionary I get: Proscribe - forbid, especially by law. synonyms: forbid, prohibit, ban, bar, disallow, rule out, embargo, veto, make illegal, interdict, outlaw, taboo "gambling was proscribed" Since "make illegal" and "prohibit" are capitalized equivalents for SHALL NOT in R2152, that's the interpretation that makes the most sense to me. > > -- > Trigon
Re: BUS: pending judicial actions
> On Jun 11, 2019, at 3:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Jun 4, 1:09 PM > - Arbitor attempts to assign #3730 to a case with text "If no player > activates Rule 2596...", and assign it to D. Margaux, but the case was > 'called' by V.J. Rada in Discussion so didn't exist. > - V.J. Rada (Jun 5, 5:50 PM) calls a CFJ with the same text. > - D. Margaux favored the pseudo-CFJ, so assuming favoring is still good. > - ACTION NEEDED: ID NUMBER AND JUDGE ASSIGNMENT I intend without 3 objections to assign this CFJ to myself.
Re: BUS: a case number [attn: Referee]
I concur and, if it is necessary for the Referee to assign the number to that CFJ, then I assign it the number 3731. On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 7:08 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > May 28, 2019 at 9:49:13 AM EDT > > - D. Margaux files a CFJ "The ADoP did not..." with the Referee. > > - Referee assigns this CFJ to Trigon as an "unnumbered" CFJ. > > - Trigon judges this CFJ. > > - ACTION NEEDED: ID NUMBER ASSIGNMENT > > If able, I assign the above-referenced CFJ the ID of CFJ 3731. > I seek the Referee's concurrence in this assignment! > > -G. > -- D. Margaux
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report (rev. 1)
COE accepted. Revised Report forthcoming. > On Jun 17, 2019, at 12:57 AM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > Claim of error: The new judgment in CFJ 3736 [0] states that it is IMPOSSIBLE > for the Referee to impose the Cold Hand of Justice. Thus, Aris does NOT have > 1 Blot. > > > [0]: Excerpt from Judgment in CFJ 3736 by omd > >> Levying a fine is certainly a regulated action, and Rule 2125 takes >> precedence over all of the Cold Hand of Justice-related rules due to >> higher power, so it seems that imposing the Cold Hand of Justice is >> impossible after all. > > > Jason Cobb > >> On 6/14/19 1:10 PM, D. Margaux wrote: >> I publish the below revised Referee report of 12 June 2019. >> >> I CoE it because the attempt to impose the CHoJ on Aris by announcement >> might have failed; I resolve that CoE by citing to the CFJ I called earlier >> today. >> >> (Because this is a revised report as of 12 June 2019, it does not reflect >> the subsequent 3 blot fine levied against myself and 1 blot fine levied >> against Murphy; they will be reflected in next week’s report.) >> >> *** >> >> Referee’s Weekly Report >> Date of This Report: 2019-06-12 (rev. 1) >> Date of Last Report: 2019-06-03 >> >> BLOT HOLDINGS >> === >> This section self-ratifies. >> >> BlotsPlayer >> --- >> 7twg >> 3V.J. Rada >>3Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >>1L. >>1Murphy >> 1Aris >> >> BlotsFugitive >> - >>8Corona >>4Kenyon >> >> RECENT CHANGES >> == >> This section does not self-ratify. >> >> 2019-06-03 twg expunges 1 blot [revision: this was INEFFECTIVE] >> 2019-06-03 V.J. Rada expunges 1 blot [revision: this was INEFFECTIVE] >> 2019-06-10 twg expunges 1 blot [revision: this was INEFFECTIVE] >> 2019-06-12 Aris fined 1 blot >> >> RECENT FINGER POINTS & INVESTIGATION RESULTS >> ========= >> This section does not self-ratify. >> >> 2019-06-11 G. pointed eir finger at Aris for failure to publish a >> Promotor's weekly report. RESULT: Finger pointing was well taken, >> and Aris was fined 1 blot. >> >> 2019-06-03 Falsifian pointed eir finger at omd, Aris, Gaelan, G., >> Cuddle Beam, Trigon, Murphy, ATMunn, twg, D. Margaux, Jacob Arduino, >> Falsifian, Bernie, Rance, o, Jason Cobb, Walker, PSS, Corona, V.J. >> Rada, L, Hālian, Tarhalindur, Telnaior, and Baron von Vaderham. >> RESULT: The finger pointing was declared Shenanigans and no fines >> were assessed, for the reasons stated in the judgement of CFJ 3730 >> issued 12 June 2019.
BUS: Church of Ritual
I propose the below as a contract and I intend to be bound by it if someone accepts it before Sunday— /// This contract is called the Church of The Ritual or the Church. The text of this contract is called the Sacred Text. Parties to the contract are the faithful; nonparties are heathens. A heathen can become faithful by announcement upon transferring 5 coins to the Church of The Ritual. A faithful can become heathen by announcement, unless that faithful has left unsatisfied one or more collection obligations. When the Sacred Text refers to a “religion-imposed office,” that means a switch that behaves as closely as possible to the way it would behave if it were an imposed office created by rule. The priest, the heretic, and the inquisitor are religion-imposed offices. An edict is an instrument binding on the faithful that 7 days after promulgation. The priest is the recordkeepor of the holders of the religion-imposed offices. The priest is also the recordkeepor of the Sacred Text and of the text and expiration dates of any edicts. The priest SHALL publish as part of eir weekly report a list of the holders of those offices, the Sacred Text, and the text and expiration dates of all current and past edicts. If a faithful performs The Ritual at a time when the office of priest is vacant, then that faithful is installed as priest. If the first player to perform The Ritual in a given Agoran week is faithful, then e is installed as the priest; otherwise, the first heathen to perform The Ritual in that Agoran week is installed as the heretic and the first faithful to perform The Ritual in that Agoran week is installed as the inquisitor. If the heretic recants eir heresy and abjectly apologizes, then the priest CAN by announcement cleanse the heretic and e SHALL do so in a timely manner if e believes the heretic to be sincere. When the heretic is cleansed, the office of heretic is made vacant. If the heretic becomes faithful, then the offices of heretic and inquisitor are made vacant. The faithful MUST prevent all players from becoming the heretic; failure to do so is the crime of Abetting Heresy. The heretic SHOULD be shunned. The inquisitor SHOULD actively seek the consensus of the faithful regarding what would be an appropriate shunning. If the inquisitor has the backing of a consensus of the faithful, then e CAN promulgate an edict that states the manner in which the faithful MUST shun the heretic. If a faithful makes an INEFFECTIVE attempt to promulgate an edict, then the priest CAN and SHALL by announcement declare that that faithful SHOULD be ashamed. The priest and inquisitor SHOULD be treated right good. Upon being installed in the office of priest or inquisitor, a faithful CAN once cause the Church to transfer to em up to 3 coins. If the Church has fewer than 10 coins, any faithful CAN by announcement with support from another faithful once call a collection. If a collection is called, each faithful MUST in a timely fashion satisfy eir collection obligation by transferring to the Church 5 coins. If a faithful has left a collection obligation unsatisfied for longer than 7 days, any faithful CAN act on eir behalf to satisfy that obligation by causing em to transfer to the Church 5 coins. ///
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8176
I vote FOR proposal 8176 > On May 5, 2019, at 8:49 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran > Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal > pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the > quorum is 2, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid > options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are > conditional votes). > > IDAuthor(s) AITitle > --- > 8176 G. 2.0 Zombies take care of this now > > The proposal pool is currently empty. > > The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. > > // > ID: 8176 > Title: Zombies take care of this now > Adoption index: 2.0 > Author: G. > Co-authors: > > > Amend Rule 2139 (The Registrar) by deleting: > In the first Eastman week of every month the Registrar SHALL > attempt to deregister every player that has not sent a message to > a public forum in the preceding month. > > //
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Another zombie auction
I bid 2 coins > On May 9, 2019, at 10:59 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I bid 5 coins. > >> On 5/9/2019 6:54 AM, James Cook wrote: >> I initiate a zombie auction, with the following lots (each zombie a >> separate lot) ordered as follows (highest-bid first): >> 1. V.J. Rada >> 2. Telnaior >> 3. L >> 4. Baron von Vaderham >> Agora is the Auctioneer, and the Registrar is the Announcer. The >> currency is Coins with a minimum bid of 1.
BUS: Election
Below is Murphy’s message from the website, which somehow hasn’t come through. I declare candidacy for Assessor. Can you have an election for imposed offices? I thought Comptrollor was imposed, but not 100% sure. > BUS: Elections > Edward Murphy Wed, 08 May 2019 19:44:51 -0700 > > For each of these interim offices, as ADoP, I initiate an election for that > office (current holder if any in parentheses): > Arbitor (Aris) > Assessor (D. Margaux) > Astronomor (twg) > Clork (twg) > Comptroller > Herald > Prime Minister > Referee > Registrar (Falsifian) > Treasuror (Falsifian)
BUS: Side-Game Suspension Act (v2)
I submit the following revised proposal: Title: Side-Game Suspension Act (v.2) AI: 3 Author: D Margaux Co-authors: G., Aris Text: 1. The Spaace Rules are defined to be Rules 2588, 2589, 2590, 2591, 2592, 2593 and 2594. 2. The Politics Rules are defined to be Rules 2533, 2534, 2535, 2536, 2537, 2538, 2539, 2540, 2586, 2542, and 2543. 3. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Spaaace Rules are suspended and have no force or effect until Spaaace is Revived. 4. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Politics Rules are suspended and have no force or effect until Politics is Revived. 5. A player CAN with 2 support Revive Spaace (unless Spaace has already been Revived); that player is thereby installed into the office of Astronomor. 6. A player CAN with 2 support Revive Politics (unless Politics has already been Revived); that player is thereby installed into the office of Clork. 7. If Politics and Space have both been Revived, then any player CAN cause this Rule to repeal itself with Notice. 8. Any player CAN with Agoran Consent trigger this Rule. When this Rule is triggered, the following events happen in order: (a) the Politics Rules are automatically repealed in ascending numerical order (unless Politics has been Revived), (b) the Spaaace Rules are automatically repealed in ascending numerical order (unless Spaaace has been Revived), and (c) this Rule is automatically repealed.
Re: BUS: Election
I announce candidacy for referee > On May 11, 2019, at 4:04 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > I stand for Arbitor. > > -Aris > >> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 10:40 PM D. Margaux wrote: >> >> Below is Murphy’s message from the website, which somehow hasn’t come >> through. >> >> I declare candidacy for Assessor. >> >> Can you have an election for imposed offices? I thought Comptrollor was >> imposed, but not 100% sure. >> >> >>> BUS: Elections >>> Edward Murphy Wed, 08 May 2019 19:44:51 -0700 >>> >>> For each of these interim offices, as ADoP, I initiate an election for >> that office (current holder if any in parentheses): >>> Arbitor (Aris) >>> Assessor (D. Margaux) >>> Astronomor (twg) >>> Clork (twg) >>> Comptroller >>> Herald >>> Prime Minister >>> Referee >>> Registrar (Falsifian) >>> Treasuror (Falsifian) >>
BUS: Re: Scrub
I expunge a blot if possible to do so > On May 8, 2019, at 10:21 AM, D. Margaux wrote: > > I expunge a blot if possible to do so
BUS: Side-Game Suspension Act (v2)
Shoot. I caught a typo. I withdraw Side-Game Suspension Act (v2) and I submit the following revised proposal: Title: Side-Game Suspension Act (v.2.1) AI: 3 Author: D Margaux Co-authors: G., Aris Text: 1. The Spaaace Rules are defined to be Rules 2588, 2589, 2590, 2591, 2592, 2593 and 2594. 2. The Politics Rules are defined to be Rules 2533, 2534, 2535, 2536, 2537, 2538, 2539, 2540, 2586, 2542, and 2543. 3. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Spaaace Rules are suspended and have no force or effect until Spaaace is Revived. 4. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Politics Rules are suspended and have no force or effect until Politics is Revived. 5. A player CAN with 2 support Revive Spaaace (unless Spaaace has already been Revived); that player is thereby installed into the office of Astronomor. 6. A player CAN with 2 support Revive Politics (unless Politics has already been Revived); that player is thereby installed into the office of Clork. 7. If Politics and Spaaace have both been Revived, then any player CAN cause this Rule to repeal itself with Notice. 8. Any player CAN with Agoran Consent trigger this Rule. When this Rule is triggered, the following events happen in order: (a) the Politics Rules are automatically repealed in ascending numerical order (unless Politics has been Revived), (b) the Spaaace Rules are automatically repealed in ascending numerical order (unless Spaaace has been Revived), and (c) this Rule is automatically repealed.
BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport
CoE - twg is retroactively by ratification not clork or astronomor. > On May 19, 2019, at 5:07 PM, Edward Murphy wrote: > > =Metareport= > You can find an up-to-date version of this report at > http://zenith.homelinux.net/adop/report.php > > Date of last report: 2019-05-09 > Date of this report: 2019-05-19 > > > MISCELLANEOUS INFO > > > Filled offices: 14/16 (87.50%) > Total officers: 8 > Consolidation[1]: 1.75 > Late reports: 3/11 (27.27%) > > [1] This is the number of filled offices divided by the number of > officers. At 1, this means that all offices are filled by different > players; if it reached the number of filled offices, that would mean > that all offices are filled by one player. > > > OFFICES > > Office Holder[1] Since Last Election Complexity > > ADoP Murphy 2018-01-182018-01-18 2 > ArbitorAris 2019-04-302019-05-14 2 > Assessor D. Margaux 2019-05-082019-05-14 3 > Astronomor*twg2019-01-152019-05-19 2 > Clork *twg2019-01-152019-05-19 2 > Comptrolloromd2019-05-192019-05-19 [3] 1 > Distributoromd2018-06-15(never)[3] 0 > Herald*(vacant) 2019-04-27[2] 2019-05-19 2 > Prime Minister*(vacant) 2019-03-07[2] (ongoing) 1 > Promotor Aris 2016-10-212017-09-21 2 > RefereeD. Margaux 2019-05-132019-05-14 2 > Registrar Falsifian 2019-05-042019-05-14 2 > Rulekeepor Trigon 2018-10-142018-11-25 3 > SpeakerD. Margaux 2019-03-072014-04-21 [3] 1 > Tailor*G. 2019-05-152018-09-14 1 > Treasuror Falsifian 2019-05-052019-05-14 3 > > [1] * = Interim office (vacant or holder not elected) > [2] Vacant since this date > [3] Currently imposed > > > WEEKLY REPORTS > > Office ReportLast Published Late[1] > > ADoP Offices 2019-05-09[2] > ArbitorJudicial matters 2019-05-06 > Astronomor Space 2019-03-05 !!! > Clork Politics 2019-03-05 !!! > Herald Matters of Honour 2019-04-07 (vacant) > Promotor Proposal pool 2019-05-06 > RefereeRule violations 2019-05-19 > Registrar Players, Fora 2019-05-13 > Rulekeepor Short Logical Ruleset 2019-05-18 > Treasuror Coins, other currencies 2019-05-13 > > [1] ! = 1 period missed, !! = 2, !!! = 3+ > [2] Not including this report > > MONTHLY REPORTS > > Office ReportLast Published Late > > Herald Patent titles 2019-03-31 (vacant) > Registrar Player history2019-05-05 > Rulekeepor Full Logical Ruleset 2019-05-18 > Tailor Ribbons 2019-05-15 > > > > ELECTIONS > > Office Initiated Phase Candidates > > Prime Minister 2019-03-03 Voting Aris, Corona, G. > > > UPCOMING ELECTIONS[1] > > Office Days Until Last Election > > Promotor 00 Days 2017-09-21 > ADoP 00 Days 2018-01-18 > Tailor 00 Days 2018-09-14 > Rulekeepor 00 Days 2018-11-25 > Arbitor84 Days 2019-05-14 > > [1] Anyone can start an election (with 2 support and also becoming a > candidate) 90 days aft
BUS: Fwd: Offices
Hearing no objection, I ratify the below document.
Begin forwarded message:
> From: D Margaux
> Date: May 14, 2019 at 8:32:43 AM EDT
> To: Agora Business
> Subject: Offices
>
> I intend without objection to ratify the following document:
>
> { at 12:00 AM UTC on 14 May 2019, the offices of tailor, clork, and
> astronomor are vacant }
>
> This is untrue because twg holds those offices; the reason to ratify this
> document is because impeachment seems inappropriate, but since twg is away he
> shouldn’t be in the running for comptrollor.
Re: BUS: Fwd: [dicelog] Selection of Comptrollor
Another CoE for most recent ADOP report—by ratification, twg wasn’t an officer at the time of this dice roll. So omd wasn’t chosen from among all officers; he was chosen from among all officers + twg. > On May 19, 2019, at 4:56 PM, Edward Murphy wrote: > > As ADoP, per Rule 2597 (Line-item Veto), I select omd as Comptrollor. > > > Forwarded Message > Subject: [dicelog] Selection of Comptrollor > Date: Sun, 19 May 2019 22:54:31 +0200 (CEST) > From: Dice Server -6zmp2p- > Reply-To: emurph...@zoho.com > To: emurph...@zoho.com, agora-business@agoranomic.org > > > This is an automatic message. > > This message was generated by > >emurph...@zoho.com > > through the "hamete virtual dice server" at https://dicelog.com > > Message sent to: > >emurph...@zoho.com >agora-business@agoranomic.org > > > Dice Roll Information: > -- > > 1 = Murphy > 2 = Aris > 3 = D. Margaux > 4 = twg > 5 = omd > 6 = Falsifian > 7 = Trigon > > > > Dice Results: > - > > Result of the throw of dice "1d7" : > > 5 > > > > > If you have any doubt, you can verify the validity of this message, > using the Verification Number on https://dicelog.com/verif : > >54lk47q0qm > > or simply (*) click the URL: > >https://dicelog.com/verif?vnum=54lk47q0qm > > > > (*): you may have a security warning about invalid SSL certificate, > see why: http://dicelog.com/inc/sslwarning_en.html > > Regards, > the dicelog.com team. > > >
BUS: Fwd: Church of Ritual
I re-propose the below contract and agree to be bound by it if it is accepted within one week Begin forwarded message: > From: "D. Margaux" > Date: May 12, 2019 at 6:54:12 PM EDT > To: Agora Business > Subject: Church of Ritual > > I propose the following as a contract and agree to be bound by it if it is > accepted before next Saturday. I modified it to eliminate some of the > potentially dangerous stuff. This is not a scam. > > /// > > This contract is called the Church of The Ritual or the Church. The text of > this contract is called the Sacred Text. > > Parties to the contract are the faithful; nonparties are heathens. A heathen > can become faithful by announcement upon transferring 5 coins to the Church > of The Ritual. A faithful can become heathen by announcement, unless that > faithful has left unsatisfied one or more collection obligations. > > When the Sacred Text refers to a “religion-imposed office,” that means a > switch that behaves as closely as possible to the way it would behave if it > were an imposed office created by rule. > > The priest, the heretic, and the inquisitor are religion-imposed offices. The > priest is the recordkeepor of the holders of the religion-imposed offices. > The priest is also the recordkeepor of the Sacred Text. The priest SHALL > publish as part of eir weekly report a list of the holders of those offices > and the Sacred Text. > > If a faithful performs The Ritual at a time when the office of priest is > vacant, then that faithful is installed as priest. > > If the first player to perform The Ritual in a given Agoran week is faithful, > then e is installed as the priest; otherwise, the first heathen to perform > The Ritual in that Agoran week is installed as the heretic and the first > faithful to perform The Ritual in that Agoran week is installed as the > inquisitor. > > If the heretic recants eir heresy and abjectly apologizes, then the priest > CAN by announcement cleanse the heretic and e SHALL do so in a timely manner > if e believes the heretic to be sincere. When the heretic is cleansed, the > offices of heretic and inquisitor are made vacant. > > If the heretic becomes faithful, then the offices of heretic and inquisitor > are made vacant. > > The faithful MUST prevent all players from becoming the heretic; failure to > do so is the crime of Abetting Heresy. > > The heretic SHOULD be shunned. The inquisitor SHOULD actively seek the > consensus of the faithful regarding what would be an appropriate shunning. > > The priest and inquisitor SHOULD be treated right good. Upon being installed > in the office of priest or inquisitor, a faithful CAN once cause the Church > to transfer to em up to 3 coins. > > If the Church has fewer than 10 coins, any faithful CAN by announcement with > support from another faithful once call a collection. If a collection is > called, each faithful MUST in a timely fashion satisfy eir collection > obligation by transferring to the Church 5 coins. If a faithful has left a > collection obligation unsatisfied for longer than 7 days, any faithful CAN > act on eir behalf to satisfy that obligation by causing em to transfer to the > Church 5 coins. > > ///
Re: BUS: Re: Error in state of PM election
I vote conditionally as follows:
{G.}, if G. (and not Aris) is party to a Church of the Ritual contract proposed
by D. Margaux;
{Aris}, if Aris (and not G.) is party to such a contract;
Otherwise {Corona}.
> On May 19, 2019, at 7:24 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I vote conditionally: If Aris is a candidate, {G., Aris}, else {G.}
>
> I act on behalf of Telenaior to vote as above.
>
>> On 5/19/2019 1:46 PM, Edward Murphy wrote:
>> Aris may also be a candidate. If voting for Prime Minister is not yet
>> open, then I open it (details as below except Aris is also a candidate)
>> and vote for G..
>>> On 5/19/2019 1:42 PM, Edward Murphy wrote:
>>> Falsifian wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2019-04-28 [1], Murphy attempted to resolve the PM election as failed
>>>> quorum.
>>>> The same day [2], Aris made a CoE on that, saying the decision on
>>>> Prime Minister was never opened.
>>>> On 2019-05-09 [3], Murphy claimed to initiate an election for Prime
>>>> minister.
>>>>
>>>> The claim of error in [2] has not been addressed. Murphy, could you
>>>> take a look? If the CoE correct, then I think Aris, G. and Corona are
>>>> candidates, and we're still waiting for the decision to be initiated.
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-April/040244.html
>>>>
>>>> [2]
>>>> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-April/040247.html
>>>>
>>>> [3]
>>>> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-May/040281.html
>>>
>>> CoE admitted. The four-day nomination period ended, but there was no
>>> "voting hereby opens" announcement. Relevant events in ADoP datatabase
>>> have been deleted. (Related tables are still off kilter, but should
>>> sort themselves out as the election progresses.)
>>>
>>> Voting for Prime Minister hereby opens. The Vote Collector is the ADoP
>>> (me), the valid options are the candidates (G. and Corona), and the
>>> voting method is instant runoff (super relevant).
>>>
>>> I vote for G. for Prime Minister.
>>>
>>>
Re: BUS: Side-Game Suspension Act (v2)
Lol, thanks. I withdraw my defective proposal entitled Side-Game Suspension Act (v2.1). On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 9:25 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Erm... This doesn't actually say "enact a rule" anywhere. Let me fix > it for you. I submit the following proposal. > > -Aris > --- > Title: Side-Game Suspension Act (v3) > AI: 3.0 > Author: Aris > Co-authors: D Margaux, G. > > Enact a new power 3.0 rule, entitled "Side-Game Suspension", with the > following text: > 1. The Spaaace Rules are defined to be Rules 2588, 2589, 2590, > 2591, 2592, 2593 > and 2594. > > 2. The Politics Rules are defined to be Rules 2533, 2534, 2535, 2536, > 2537, > 2538, 2539, 2540, 2586, 2542, and 2543. > > 3. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Spaaace Rules are > suspended and > have no force or effect until Spaaace is Revived. > > 4. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Politics Rules are > suspended and > have no force or effect until Politics is Revived. > > 5. A player CAN with 2 support Revive Spaaace (unless Spaaace has > already been > Revived); that player is thereby installed into the office of Astronomor. > > 6. A player CAN with 2 support Revive Politics (unless Politics has > already > been Revived); that player is thereby installed into the office of Clork. > > 7. If Politics and Spaaace have both been Revived, then any player CAN > cause > this Rule to repeal itself with Notice. > > 8. Any player CAN with Agoran Consent trigger this Rule. When this > Rule is > triggered, the following events happen in order: (a) the Politics Rules > are > automatically repealed in ascending numerical order (unless Politics has > been > Revived), (b) the Spaaace Rules are automatically repealed in ascending > numerical order (unless Spaaace has been Revived), and (c) this Rule is > automatically repealed. > > On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 8:17 AM D Margaux wrote: > > > > Shoot. I caught a typo. I withdraw Side-Game Suspension Act (v2) and I > submit the following revised proposal: > > > > Title: Side-Game Suspension Act (v.2.1) > > AI: 3 > > Author: D Margaux > > Co-authors: G., Aris > > Text: > > > > 1. The Spaaace Rules are defined to be Rules 2588, 2589, 2590, 2591, > 2592, 2593 and 2594. > > > > 2. The Politics Rules are defined to be Rules 2533, 2534, 2535, 2536, > 2537, 2538, 2539, 2540, 2586, 2542, and 2543. > > > > 3. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Spaaace Rules are > suspended and have no force or effect until Spaaace is Revived. > > > > 4. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Politics Rules are > suspended and have no force or effect until Politics is Revived. > > > > 5. A player CAN with 2 support Revive Spaaace (unless Spaaace has > already been Revived); that player is thereby installed into the office of > Astronomor. > > > > 6. A player CAN with 2 support Revive Politics (unless Politics has > already been Revived); that player is thereby installed into the office of > Clork. > > > > 7. If Politics and Spaaace have both been Revived, then any player CAN > cause this Rule to repeal itself with Notice. > > > > 8. Any player CAN with Agoran Consent trigger this Rule. When this > Rule is triggered, the following events happen in order: (a) the Politics > Rules are automatically repealed in ascending numerical order (unless > Politics has been Revived), (b) the Spaaace Rules are automatically > repealed in ascending numerical order (unless Spaaace has been Revived), > and (c) this Rule is automatically repealed. > > > -- D. Margaux
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8177
I vote FOR and cause L to vote FOR the below: > On May 19, 2019, at 9:49 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > IDAuthor(s) AITitle > --- > 8177 Aris, [1] 3.0 Side-Game Suspension Act (v3)
Re: BUS: Fwd: [dicelog] Selection of Comptrollor
I also CoE that omd is not the comptrollor because G. was Tailor, and wasn’t in the dice roll. On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 9:41 AM Edward Murphy wrote: > D. Margaux wrote: > > > Another CoE for most recent ADOP report—by ratification, twg wasn’t an > officer at the time of this dice roll. So omd wasn’t chosen from among all > officers; he was chosen from among all officers + twg. > > Denied. All officers still had an equal chance of being chosen. If twg > emself had been chosen, then such a CoE would be valid. > > > -- D. Margaux
BUS: Quanging
I earn 5 coins each for publishing the most recent weekly reports for
Astronomor, Clork, Assessor, and Referee.
> On May 21, 2019, at 6:20 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
> The below reports are false. The reason for ratifying them is because the
> games are defunct and because it’s too hard to figure out what the gamestate
> of either of them is.
>
> I deputise for Astronomor to publish this report: {there are no entities in
> existence for which the Astronomor is the recordkeepor other than those
> created directly by the Rules. All switches for which the Astronomor is
> recordkeepor have their default value.}
>
> I deputise for Clork to publish this report: {there are no entities in
> existence for which the Clork is the recordkeepor other than those directly
> created by the Rules. All switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have
> their default value.}
>
> I resign Clork and I resign Astronomor.
BUS: Offices
I intend without objection to ratify the following document:
{ at 12:00 AM UTC on 14 May 2019, the offices of tailor, clork, and astronomor
are vacant }
This is untrue because twg holds those offices; the reason to ratify this
document is because impeachment seems inappropriate, but since twg is away he
shouldn’t be in the running for comptrollor.
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8177
I intend without objection to ratify the following document as true at the time
00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019:
{ For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace Rules” have the
meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.
Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the Spaaace Rules
has its default value.
There are no currently existing entities or switches created by the Clork
pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor pursuant to the Spaaace
Rules. }
The document is false; the reason for ratifying it is that the subgames are
defunct.
> On May 20, 2019, at 8:18 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
> What if, by ratification, we reset all Spaaace and Politics switches to their
> default values before suspending?
>
>> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 8:08 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> I vote AGAINST 8177.
>> I act on behalf of Telnaior to vote AGAINST 8177.
>>
>> As commented earlier, I was knocked out of space early on, as have
>> others. Willing to sit out of a subgame this long, but not through
>> a whole revival.
>>
>> On 5/19/2019 6:49 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
>> > Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
>> > pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
>> > quorum is 3, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
>> > options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
>> > conditional votes).
>> >
>> > IDAuthor(s) AITitle
>> > -----------
>> > 8177 Aris, [1] 3.0 Side-Game Suspension Act (v3)
>> >
>> > The proposal pool is currently empty.
>> >
>> > [1] D Margaux, G.
>> >
>> > The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.
>> >
>> > //
>> > ID: 8177
>> > Title: Side-Game Suspension Act (v3)
>> > Adoption index: 3.0
>> > Author: Aris
>> > Co-authors: D Margaux, G.
>> >
>> > Enact a new power 3.0 rule, entitled "Side-Game Suspension", with the
>> > following text:
>> >
>> >
>> >1. The Spaaace Rules are defined to be Rules 2588, 2589, 2590, 2591,
>> > 2592,
>> > 2593 and 2594.
>> >
>> >2. The Politics Rules are defined to be Rules 2533, 2534, 2535, 2536,
>> > 2537,
>> > 2538, 2539, 2540, 2586, 2542, and 2543.
>> >
>> >3. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Spaaace Rules are
>> > suspended and
>> > have no force or effect until Spaaace is Revived.
>> >
>> >4. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Politics Rules are
>> > suspended and have no force or effect until Politics is Revived.
>> >
>> >5. A player CAN with 2 support Revive Spaaace (unless Spaaace has
>> > already
>> > been Revived); that player is thereby installed into the office
>> > of Astronomor.
>> >
>> >6. A player CAN with 2 support Revive Politics (unless Politics has
>> > already
>> > been Revived); that player is thereby installed into the office of
>> > Clork.
>> >
>> >7. If Politics and Spaaace have both been Revived, then any player CAN
>> > cause
>> > this Rule to repeal itself with Notice.
>> >
>> >8. Any player CAN with Agoran Consent trigger this Rule. When this
>> > Rule is
>> > triggered, the following events happen in order: (a) the Politics
>> > Rules are
>> > automatically repealed in ascending numerical order (unless
>> > Politics has been
>> > Revived), (b) the Spaaace Rules are automatically repealed in
>> > ascending
>> > numerical order (unless Spaaace has been Revived), and (c) this Rule
>> > is
>> > automatically repealed.
>> >
> --
> D. Margaux
BUS: Ritual
I pay 7 coins to perform the Ritual. All hail the Ritual.
BUS: Resignations
With regret I resign the offices of Arbitor and Registrar. Very sorry all, but life has gotten quite busy recently. Hopefully I can engage more with Agora again soon.
BUS: Re: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8174A and 8175
I vote PRESENT on the two below proposals. >> IDAuthor(s) AITitle >> --- >> 8174A G. 1.0 Understated >> 8175 Aris3.0 SLR Ratification
BUS: Scrub
I expunge a blot if possible to do so
BUS: Side-Game Suspension Act
We should probably do something about Spaace and Politics, since there’s little
interest in them, but the rules have lots of obligations that are going
unfulfilled. We could repeal those rules, but I thought this could be a nice
solution in case there is interest in reviving the games when people come back.
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Side-Game Suspension Act
AI: 3
Text:
The offices of Astronomor and Clork are made vacant.
All switches defined by or created by the Politics Rules or the Spaace Rules
are flipped to their default values. All entities created by the Politics
Rules or the Spaace Rules are destroyed.
Enact a rule (power=3) entitled “Space & Politics Suspension” with the
following text:
{
1. The Spaace Rules are defined to be Rules 2588, 2589, 2590, 2591, 2592, and
259.
2. The Politics Rules are defined to be Rules 2533, 2534, 2535, 2536, 2537,
2538, 2539, 2540, 2586, 2542, and 2543.
3. Unless Spaace has been Revived, the Spaace Rules are suspended and have no
force or effect.
4. Unless Politics has been Revived, the Politics Rules are suspended and have
no force or effect.
5. A player CAN with 2 support Revive Spaace (unless Spaace has already been
Revived); that player is thereby installed into the office of Astronomor.
6. A player CAN with 2 support Revive Politics (unless Politics has already
been Revived); that player is thereby installed into the office of Clork.
7. This Rule automatically repeals itself when Politics and Spaace have both
been Revived.
8. Any player CAN with Agoran Consent trigger this Rule. If this Rule is
triggered, the following events happen in order: (a) the Politics Rules are
automatically repealed (unless Politics has been Revived), (b) the Spaace Rules
are automatically repealed (unless Spaace has been Revived), and (c) this Rule
is automatically repealed.
}
BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8196-8201
I vote present on all the below proposals if I can
> On Jul 10, 2019, at 10:44 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> I hereby resolve the Agoran decisions to adopt the below proposals.
>
> The quorum for all below decisions was 7.
>
> Voting strengths (3 unless otherwise noted):
> Corona has voting strength 1 (Blots)
> G. has voting strength 4 (PM)
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus has voting strength 2 (Blots)
> twg has voting strength 1 (Blots)
>
>
> RESOLUTION OF PROPOSAL 8196 ("Perfecting pledges (v1.2)")
> FOR:
> AGAINST: Falsifian, G., Jason Cobb, R. Lee, Telnaior, Walker, twg
> PRESENT: Aris, Murphy, Trigon
> AI (F/A): 0/20 (AI=1.7)
> OUTCOME: REJECTED
>
> RESOLUTION OF PROPOSAL 8198 ("Be gone, foul demon!")
> FOR: Aris, Falsifian, Jason Cobb, Murphy, Trigon, Walker, twg
> AGAINST: G., R. Lee, Telnaior
> PRESENT:
> AI (F/A): 19/10 (AI=1.0)
> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
>
> RESOLUTION OF PROPOSAL 8199 ("Fixing instant runoff")
> FOR: Aris
> AGAINST: Falsifian, G., Jason Cobb, Murphy, R. Lee, Telnaior, Walker, twg
> PRESENT: Trigon
> AI (F/A): 3/23 (AI=3.0)
> OUTCOME: REJECTED
>
> RESOLUTION OF PROPOSAL 8200 ("Sane AI Defaulting")
> FOR: Aris, Falsifian, G., Jason Cobb, Telnaior, Trigon, Walker, twg
> AGAINST: R. Lee
> PRESENT: Murphy
> AI (F/A): 23/3 (AI=3.0)
> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
>
> RESOLUTION OF PROPOSAL 8201 ("Just Make Them Write It Out")
> FOR: Aris, Falsifian, Jason Cobb, R. Lee, twg
> AGAINST: Trigon, Walker
> PRESENT: G., Murphy, Telnaior
> AI (F/A): 13/6 (AI=3.0)
> OUTCOME: REJECTED
>
>
> The full text of each ADOPTED proposal is included below:
>
> //
> ID: 8198
> Title: Be gone, foul demon!
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: Jason Cobb
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Repeal Rule 2596 ("The Ritual").
>
> //
> ID: 8200
> Title: Sane AI Defaulting
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend Rule 1950 (Decisions with Adoption Indices) by replacing:
> Adoption index is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran
> decisions and proposals, whose value is either "none" (default) or
> an integral multiple of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9.
> with:
> Adoption index (AI) is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran
> decisions and proposals. For decisions, the possible values are
> "none" (default) or integral multiples of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9.
> For proposals, the possible values are integral multiples of 0.1
> from 1.0 to 9.9 (default 1.0).
>
> //
>
BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of proposals 8188-8195
Oops my last email was in response to the wrong message. I vote present on
THESE proposals if I can (but I think I can't?).
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 9:59 AM Jason Cobb wrote:
> ---
>
> Results as of end of 7 day voting period:
>
> The quorum for all below decisions was 7.
>
> Voting strengths (3 unless otherwise noted):
> G. has voting strength 4 (PM)
>
>
> RESOLUTION OF PROPOSAL 8188 ("Blanket Denial")
> FOR: Falsifian, G., Jason Cobb
> AGAINST:
> PRESENT:
> AI (F/A): 10/0 (AI=3.0)
> OUTCOME: FAILED QUORUM
>
> RESOLUTION OF PROPOSAL 8189 ("Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2)")
> FOR: Falsifian, G., Jason Cobb
> AGAINST:
> PRESENT:
> AI (F/A): 10/0 (AI=1.7)
> OUTCOME: FAILED QUORUM
>
> RESOLUTION OF PROPOSAL 8190 ("Report Rewards")
> FOR: Falsifian, G., Jason Cobb
> AGAINST:
> PRESENT:
> AI (F/A): 10/0 (AI=2.0)
> OUTCOME: FAILED QUORUM
>
> RESOLUTION OF PROPOSAL 8191 ("Spaceships")
> FOR: Falsifian, Jason Cobb
> AGAINST: G.
> PRESENT:
> AI (F/A): 6/4 (AI=1.1)
> OUTCOME: FAILED QUORUM
>
> RESOLUTION OF PROPOSAL 8192 ("auctions have fees")
> FOR: Falsifian, G., Jason Cobb
> AGAINST:
> PRESENT:
> AI (F/A): 10/0 (AI=1.0)
> OUTCOME: FAILED QUORUM
>
> RESOLUTION OF PROPOSAL 8195 ("Timeline Control Ordnance v2")
> FOR: Falsifian, G., Jason Cobb
> AGAINST:
> PRESENT:
> AI (F/A): 10/0 (AI=3.0)
> OUTCOME: FAILED QUORUM
>
>
> No proposals were adopted.
>
> ---
>
> For each of the above decisions, the voting time is increased to 14
> days, and I issue a humiliating public reminder naming the following
> slackers:
>
> omd, Aris, Gaelan, Cuddle Beam, Trigon, Murphy, R. Lee, ATMunn, twg,
> D. Margaux, Jacob Arduino, Baron von Vanderham, Bernie, Rance, o,
> Walker, PSS, Corona, L, Hālian, Tarhalindur, Telnaior.
>
> Hopefully that's humiliating enough for everyone.
>
>
> The 14 day voting period has elapsed.
>
> [The below report was machine-generated. If anybody's interested, the
> source code is online, just ask for the link. This is the only time this
> header will be published.]
>
> [I hope this format's okay with everyone. If anybody wants a format more
> similar to D. Margaux's, just tell me.]
>
> This report is also available online:
>
> https://gist.github.com/random-internet-cat/d8bcc836acf55313fb0f1483de67a693
>
> ---
>
> I hereby resolve the Agoran decisions to adopt the below proposals.
>
> The quorum for all below decisions was 7.
>
> Voting strengths (3 unless otherwise noted):
> G. has voting strength 4 (PM)
>
>
> RESOLUTION OF PROPOSAL 8188 ("Blanket Denial")
> FOR: Falisifian, G., Jason Cobb
> AGAINST:
> PRESENT:
> AI (F/A): 10/0 (AI=3.0)
> OUTCOME: FAILED QUORUM
>
> RESOLUTION OF PROPOSAL 8189 ("Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2)")
> FOR: Falisifian, G., Jason Cobb
> AGAINST:
> PRESENT:
> AI (F/A): 10/0 (AI=1.7)
> OUTCOME: FAILED QUORUM
>
> RESOLUTION OF PROPOSAL 8190 ("Report Rewards")
> FOR: Falisifian, G., Jason Cobb
> AGAINST:
> PRESENT:
> AI (F/A): 10/0 (AI=2.0)
> OUTCOME: FAILED QUORUM
>
> RESOLUTION OF PROPOSAL 8191 ("Spaceships")
> FOR: Falisifian, Jason Cobb
> AGAINST: G.
> PRESENT:
> AI (F/A): 6/4 (AI=1.1)
> OUTCOME: FAILED QUORUM
>
> RESOLUTION OF PROPOSAL 8192 ("auctions have fees")
> FOR: Falisifian, G., Jason Cobb
> AGAINST:
> PRESENT:
> AI (F/A): 10/0 (AI=1.0)
> OUTCOME: FAILED QUORUM
>
> RESOLUTION OF PROPOSAL 8195 ("Timeline Control Ordnance v2")
> FOR: Falisifian, G., Jason Cobb
> AGAINST:
> PRESENT:
> AI (F/A): 10/0 (AI=3.0)
> OUTCOME: FAILED QUORUM
>
>
> No proposals were adopted.
>
> ---
>
> --
D. Margaux
BUS: More master switching
I propose the following: Title: AFK Reform Act AI: 2 Author: d Margaux Amend rule 2532 as follows: Add this sentence: "A player can flip to emself another player's master switch by announcement without objection from that other player, provided the intent to flip that switch is announced at least 7 days before the switch is flipped." Immediately following this sentence: "A zombie's master CAN flip that zombie's master switch to Agora by announcement."
BUS: Fwd: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
I withdraw my AFK proposal and propose this in its place:
Title: AFK Reform Act v1.1
AI: 2
Author: d Margaux
Coauthors: G., Jason Cobb
{
Amend rule 2532 as follows:
Add this sentence:
"A player CAN by announcement pay 10 coins to Agora to flip to emself another
player's master switch without objection from that other player or that other
player's master (if any), provided the intent to flip that switch was announced
at least 7 days before the switch is flipped."
Immediately following this sentence:
"A zombie's master CAN flip that zombie's master switch to Agora by
announcement."
}
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Jason Cobb
> Date: July 14, 2019 at 1:25:10 AM EDT
> To: agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org
> Subject: Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
> Reply-To: "Agora Nomic discussions \(DF\)"
>
> Falisifian is the author of 8202 ("Police Power"), although e has listed me
> as a co-author.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
>> On 7/13/19 11:15 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> With all of the proposals that are in the pool at the moment, errors
>> seem likely. Any and all help would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> -Aris
>> ---
>> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
>> Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
>> pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
>> quorum is 7, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
>> options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
>> conditional votes).
>>
>> ID Author(s) AITitle
>> -------
>> 8188A G. 3.0 Blanket Denial
>> 8189A Jason Cobb 1.7 Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2)
>> 8190A G., D Margaux 2.0 Report Rewards
>> 8191A R. Lee 1.1 Spaceships
>> 8192A G. 1.0 auctions have fees
>> 8194A Falsifian 2.0 Agora can transfer zombies
>> 8195A Aris, omd, Jason Cobb 3.0 Timeline Control Ordnance v2
>> 8202 Jason Cobb 1.7 Police Power
>> 8203 Jason Cobb 2.0 Fixing Summary Judgement
>> 8204 R. Lee 1.0 SMH @ Herald
>> 8205 R. Lee 1.7 Timing proposal w/ no effect
>> 8206 Jason Cobb 2.0 Rule 2472 Simplification
>> 8207 G. [1] no power is all powerful
>> 8208 Jason Cobb, [2]3.0 Regulated actions reform (v2)
>> 8209 D Margaux 2.0 AFK Reform Act
>>
>> The proposal pool is currently empty.
>>
>> [1] The proposal has AI "none", whereas the decision shall have AI 1.0.
>> [2] Aris, omd, G., Falsifian
>>
>> Legend: A : Distribution identifier for a second distribution.
>>
>> The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.
>>
>> //
>> ID: 8188
>> Title: Blanket Denial
>> Adoption index: 3.0
>> Author: G.
>> Co-authors:
>>
>>
>> Amend Rule 2201 (Self-Ratification) by replacing:
>> do one of the following in a timely fashion:
>> with
>> do one of the following in a timely fashion, in an announcement
>> that clearly cites the claim of error:
>>
>> //
>> ID: 8189
>> Title: Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2)
>> Adoption index: 1.7
>> Author: Jason Cobb
>> Co-authors:
>>
>>
>> Amend Rule 2479 ("Official Justice") as follows:
>>
>> Replace the text
>>
>>> The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
>>> Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a fine
>>> of up to 2 blots on em. Summary Judgement is imposed on the
>>> Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official
>>> proceeding.
>> with the text
>>
>>> Subject to the provisions of this rule, the Referee CAN, by announcement,
>>> impose Summary Judgment on a player. When e does so, e levies a fine of
>>> up to 2 Blots on em. If e does not specify the number of Blots in the fine,
>>> the attempt to impose Summary Judgment is INEFFECTIVE. Summary Judgement is
>>> imposed on the Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any
>>> official proceeding.
>> //
>> ID: 8190
>> Title: Report Rewards
>> Adoption index: 2.0
>> Author:
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
Votes are below.
Sorry if someone already raised this specifically, but CoE on the promotor
distribution: If 8207 is a proposal at all, then it does have an AI per Rule
1950: "Adoption index (AI) is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran
decisions and proposals. ... Adoption index is an essential parameter of an
Agoran decision if that decision has an adoption index."
In the votes below, "FOR UNLESS" is a shorthand for "conditional vote FOR,
unless a line item veto has been exercised for this proposal, in which case
AGAINST."
I vote as follows:
> On Jul 15, 2019, at 8:32 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
> pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
> quorum is 7, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
> options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
> conditional votes).
>
> ID Author(s) AITitle
> ---
> 8188A G. 3.0 Blanket Denial
FOR UNLESS
> 8189A Jason Cobb 1.7 Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2)
FOR UNLESS
> 8190A G., D Margaux 2.0 Report Rewards
FOR UNLESS
> 8191A R. Lee 1.1 Spaceships
FOR UNLESS
> 8192A G. 1.0 auctions have fees
FOR UNLESS
> 8195A Aris, omd, Jason Cobb 3.0 Timeline Control Ordnance v2
FOR UNLESS
> 8202 Jason Cobb 1.7 Police Power
FOR UNLESS
> 8203 Jason Cobb 2.0 Fixing Summary Judgement
PRESENT
> 8204 R. Lee 1.0 SMH @ Herald
FOR UNLESS
> 8205 R. Lee 1.7 Timing proposal w/ no effect
FOR UNLESS
> 8206 Jason Cobb 2.0 Rule 2472 Simplification
AGAINST
If I recall correctly, per a CFJ that defeated a scam I ran, the wording here
matters because the Speaker CAN delay a "with Notice" action by objecting, but
e CANNOT delay an action that doesn't use the Agoran Satisfaction method.
> 8207 G. [1] no power is all powerful
TANGELO
> 8208 Jason Cobb, [2]3.0 Regulated actions reform (v2)
PRESENT
I'm sure this is an excellent proposal, but it's 6:30 am my local time, and I'm
too sleepy to read it carefully enough to feel comfortable voting on it.
> 8209 D Margaux, [3] 2.0 AFK Reform Act v1.1
FOR UNLESS
> 8210 Jason Cobb 2.5 Single-party Contracts
FOR UNLESS
I think this could actually be a fun new mechanic.
> 8211 G. 3.0 Law School
FOR UNLESS
> 8212 Jason Cobb 3.0 Rule Recreation Reversal
PRESENT
Havent been following the background on this proposal.
> 8213 nch1.0 Space Fixes
FOR UNLESS
> 8214 nch1.0 Space Isn't Linear
FOR UNLESS
> //
> ID: 8188
> Title: Blanket Denial
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: G.
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend Rule 2201 (Self-Ratification) by replacing:
> do one of the following in a timely fashion:
> with
> do one of the following in a timely fashion, in an announcement
> that clearly cites the claim of error:
>
> //
> ID: 8189
> Title: Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2)
> Adoption index: 1.7
> Author: Jason Cobb
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend Rule 2479 ("Official Justice") as follows:
>
> Replace the text
>
>> The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
>> Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a fine
>> of up to 2 blots on em. Summary Judgement is imposed on the
>> Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official
>> proceeding.
>
> with the text
>
>> Subject to the provisions of this rule, the Referee CAN, by announcement,
>> impose Summary Judgment on a player. When e does so, e levies a fine of
>> up to 2 Blots on em. If e does not specify the number of Blots in the fine,
>> the attempt to impose Summary Judgment is INEFFECTIVE. Summary Judgement is
>> imposed on the Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official
>> proceeding.
>
> //
> ID: 8190
> Title: Report Rewards
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: G.
> Co-authors: D Margaux
>
>
> Amend Rule 1006 (Offices) by prepending the following text to the 1st
> paragraph:
> An Office is a position described as an Office by the Rules.
>
> Amend Rule 2496 (Rewards) by replacing:
> * Publish
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
For each of the below proposals, I cause L to ENDORSE me.
> On Jul 16, 2019, at 6:41 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
> Votes are below.
>
> Sorry if someone already raised this specifically, but CoE on the promotor
> distribution: If 8207 is a proposal at all, then it does have an AI per Rule
> 1950: "Adoption index (AI) is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran
> decisions and proposals. ... Adoption index is an essential parameter of an
> Agoran decision if that decision has an adoption index."
>
> In the votes below, "FOR UNLESS" is a shorthand for "conditional vote FOR,
> unless a line item veto has been exercised for this proposal, in which case
> AGAINST."
>
> I vote as follows:
>
>> On Jul 15, 2019, at 8:32 PM, Aris Merchant
>> wrote:
>>
>> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
>> Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
>> pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
>> quorum is 7, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
>> options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
>> conditional votes).
>>
>> ID Author(s) AITitle
>> ---
>> 8188A G. 3.0 Blanket Denial
> FOR UNLESS
>
>> 8189A Jason Cobb 1.7 Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2)
> FOR UNLESS
>
>> 8190A G., D Margaux 2.0 Report Rewards
> FOR UNLESS
>
>> 8191A R. Lee 1.1 Spaceships
> FOR UNLESS
>
>> 8192A G. 1.0 auctions have fees
> FOR UNLESS
>
>> 8195A Aris, omd, Jason Cobb 3.0 Timeline Control Ordnance v2
> FOR UNLESS
>
>> 8202 Jason Cobb 1.7 Police Power
> FOR UNLESS
>
>> 8203 Jason Cobb 2.0 Fixing Summary Judgement
> PRESENT
>
>> 8204 R. Lee 1.0 SMH @ Herald
> FOR UNLESS
>
>> 8205 R. Lee 1.7 Timing proposal w/ no effect
> FOR UNLESS
>
>> 8206 Jason Cobb 2.0 Rule 2472 Simplification
> AGAINST
> If I recall correctly, per a CFJ that defeated a scam I ran, the wording here
> matters because the Speaker CAN delay a "with Notice" action by objecting,
> but e CANNOT delay an action that doesn't use the Agoran Satisfaction method.
>
>
>> 8207 G. [1] no power is all powerful
> TANGELO
>
>> 8208 Jason Cobb, [2]3.0 Regulated actions reform (v2)
> PRESENT
> I'm sure this is an excellent proposal, but it's 6:30 am my local time, and
> I'm too sleepy to read it carefully enough to feel comfortable voting on it.
>
>> 8209 D Margaux, [3] 2.0 AFK Reform Act v1.1
> FOR UNLESS
>
>> 8210 Jason Cobb 2.5 Single-party Contracts
> FOR UNLESS
> I think this could actually be a fun new mechanic.
>
>> 8211 G. 3.0 Law School
> FOR UNLESS
>
>> 8212 Jason Cobb 3.0 Rule Recreation Reversal
> PRESENT
> Havent been following the background on this proposal.
>
>> 8213 nch1.0 Space Fixes
> FOR UNLESS
>
>> 8214 nch1.0 Space Isn't Linear
> FOR UNLESS
>
>
>
>
>> //
>
>> ID: 8188
>> Title: Blanket Denial
>> Adoption index: 3.0
>> Author: G.
>> Co-authors:
>>
>>
>> Amend Rule 2201 (Self-Ratification) by replacing:
>> do one of the following in a timely fashion:
>> with
>> do one of the following in a timely fashion, in an announcement
>> that clearly cites the claim of error:
>>
>> //
>> ID: 8189
>> Title: Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2)
>> Adoption index: 1.7
>> Author: Jason Cobb
>> Co-authors:
>>
>>
>> Amend Rule 2479 ("Official Justice") as follows:
>>
>> Replace the text
>>
>>> The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
>>> Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a fine
>>> of up to 2 blots on em. Summary Judgement is imposed on the
>>> Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official
>>> proceeding.
>>
>> with the text
>>
>>> Subject to the provisions of this rule, the Referee CAN, by announcement,
>>> impose Summary Judgment on a player. When e does so, e levies a fine of
>
BUS: Kwang
I earn 10 coins total (5 for each of my two most recent CFJs)
BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3744 Assigned to D. Margaux
Both 3744 and 3745 judged TRUE. Not sure what is the difference between them. The question in both is, when a player attempts to create a proposal with an invalid adoption index, does the attempt fail or does the AI retain its default value? I think it retains its default value. A player can create a proposal "by announcement," if e specifies certain mandatory attributes. The failure to state a valid adoption index does not make the attempted proposal creation INEFFECTIVE, because that attribute is an optional specification. For Agoran decisions that have an adoption index, the value of that adoption index is an essential parameter. As a result, it must have some value. When a player specifies an invalid AI, then no other value seems possible aside from the default one. > On Jun 30, 2019, at 4:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > The below is CFJ 3744. I assign it to D. Margaux. > > === CFJ 3744 === > > There exists a proposal with the title 'It's caused enough trouble > already' and with a valid adoption index. > > == > > Caller: Jason Cobb > > Judge: D. Margaux > > == > > History: > > Called by Jason Cobb: 23 Jun 2019 22:07:24 > Assigned to D. Margaux: [now] > > == > > Gratuitous Arguments by G.: > > When you submit a proposal, it is "optional" to include an adoption index > (R2350). The default value in R1950 is "none" so that likely means the > result (if you submit without specifying at all) is a proposal with "AI = > none". > > If you submit with an invalid (but optional) AI, I'm not at all sure > whether it invalidates the proposal creation or sets it at default. > > For example, in the case of Rule Changes, if you say "Amend Rule > ([Title])", including the [Title] is optional, but if you specify the > title incorrectly, precedent holds that it invalidates the whole rule > change as overly ambiguous, though that relies on the "Any ambiguity..." > clause in R105 specific to Rule Changes. > Falsifian specified an (invalid) AI of 0.5 when submitting the proposal > in question. So for more general by-announcement actions, does > specifying an invalid but optional parameter invalidate the whole process? > > -- > > Gratuitous Evidence by G.: > > On 6/23/2019 9:08 AM, James Cook wrote to agora-business: >> I create a proposal with the following attributes and text: >> Title: It's caused enough trouble already >> Adoption index: 0.5 >> Co-authors: none (empty list) >> Text: Repeal Rule 2596 (The Ritual). > > Rule 2350/11 (Power=3) > Proposals > > A proposal is a type of entity consisting of a body of text and > other attributes. A player CAN create a proposal by announcement, > specifying its text and optionally specifying any of the following > attributes: > > * An associated title. > > * A list of co-authors (which must be persons other than the > author). > > * An adoption index. > > Creating a proposal adds it to the Proposal Pool. Once a proposal > is created, neither its text nor any of the aforementioned > attributes can be changed. [...] > > == >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3744 Assigned to D. Margaux
I agree with this analysis. I self move to reconsider 3745, and judge it FALSE for the reasons given by g. > On Jul 1, 2019, at 12:30 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > The Proposal Distribution (not the Proposal) was CoE'd on the AI (the > Distribution listed the AI as 0.5, which is wrong regardless). Since AI is > an essential parameter, that means the attempt to distribute the proposal > and create a decision failed, by R107. (using R107 language, the CoE > "correctly identified the lack" of a valid AI). > > Therefore the decision was never initiated - it was invalid. (This > all happened before the CFJs were called).
Re: BUS: Birthday Ribbon
Happy birthday Agora. I award myself a magenta ribbon > On Jun 29, 2019, at 12:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Happy Birthday, Agora!! > > >> On 6/29/2019 9:32 AM, James Cook wrote: >> It's Agora's birthday. Happy Birthday, Agora! >> I award myself a Magenta ribbon.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3764 Assigned to D. Margaux
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 8:14 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > The below CFJ is 3764. I assign it to D. Margaux. > > === CFJ 3764 === > >If a proposal purporting to register nch was adopted now, then one >second later, e would be bound by the rules. > > == > > Caller:Murphy > > Judge: D. Margaux > > == > > History: > > Called by Murphy: 28 Jul 2019 19:03:42 > Assigned to D. Margaux: [now] > > == > > Judged FALSE. NCH voluntarily deregistered less than 30 days ago. Under Rule 849, if a player does that, then "e CANNOT register or be registered for 30 days." In my opinion, a proposal "purporting to register nch" would constitute an attempt to have nch "be registered" less than 30 days after his voluntary deregistration. That attempt necessarily fails under Rule 849. -- D. Margaux
Re: BUS: Weekly maintenance
I earn 5 coins for my recent cfj judgement and I expunge a blot too On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 6:44 AM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > I earn 5 coins for judging CFJ 3762. > I expunge one of my blots. > > -twg > -- D. Margaux
BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3771 assigned to D. Margaux
>> >>> On Aug 25, 2019, at 3:33 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> >>> I think the below is common sense if not directly obvious - do people >>> agree or is a case needed? >>> >>> I CFJ: When a CFJ judgement finds that conditions for awarding a >>> contested patent title are valid, that constitutes the "announcement >>> of the authorizing conditions" for the REQUIREMENT to make the award >>> in a timely fashion. >>> >>> Arguments >>> >>> R649 reads in part: A person permitted and enabled to award (revoke) a Patent Title SHALL do so in a timely fashion after the conditions authorizing em to do so are announced, unless there is an open judicial case contesting the validity of those conditions. >>> >>> If there is an open judicial case on the Patent Title conditions when >>> the original time limit expires, and the judgement later finds that >>> the conditions for the award were valid, then the options for >>> interpreting this clause are (1) a retroactive setting of the timing >>> requirement to the original announcement conditions, which is quite >>> problematic, (2) an elimination of the requirement entirely, because >>> the time limit never passes under the right conditions, which is also >>> unintended, or (3) treating the judgement as the announcement of the >>> authorizing conditions. Option 3 makes the best sense. >> >> Option 3 makes sense but seems unsupported by the text. Option 2 seems to be >> what a straight forward reading would require. CFJ 3771 judged FALSE, but with reasoning that will probably satisfy the Caller. Under R649, “a person permitted and enabled to award (revoke) a Patent Title SHALL do so in a timely fashion after the conditions authorizing em to do so are announced, unless there is an open case contesting the validity of those conditions.” The question presented is whether a judgement on “an open judicial case contesting the validity of those conditions” is itself one of the “conditions authorizing [a player] to [award (revoke)] a patent title.” Under the current ruleset, the answer is FALSE. A player CAN award (revoke) a patent title during the pendency of a judicial case, and R649 does not change that. Under R649, a player does not NEED to award the title during the pendency of the judicial case, but the Rule does not say the player CANNOT do so if the conditions are satisfied. Although not necessary for the decision of this CFJ, it would be useful to give some guidance about when the time period in R649 becomes triggered. In my view, R649 REQUIRES a player to award (revoke) a patent title in a timely fashion if ALL of these four circumstances are satisfied: (1) e is “permitted” to do so, (2) e is “enabled” to do so, (3) “the conditions authorizing em to do so are announced,” AND (4) “there is [NOT] an open case contesting the validity of those conditions [in (3)].” It is clear that the player MUST award (revoke) the title within a timely fashion if ALL of those circumstances become satisfied at the same time and no judicial case arises. The Rule is ambiguous, however, about when the timely fashion period starts and ends if conditions (1), (2), and (3) are satisfied, but an open case renders (4) unsatisfied for a period of time. One reading of the Rule would say that the “timely fashion” language is triggered by the satisfaction of (1), (2), and (3), and the requirement is entirely excused if (4) becomes unsatisfied. That interpretation would read the text as saying, in essence, “a player MUST award/revoke within 7 days after (1), (2), and (3) become satisfied, except that the player never needs to do so if (4) is unsatisfied during that time period.” I don’t think that reading makes much sense. Another reading makes more sense, in my view. We could read the Rule as saying that the “timely fashion” is triggered at any time when (1), (2), (3), AND (4) are ALL satisfied. That interpretation would read the text as saying, in essence, “a player MUST award/revoke within 7 days after (1), (2), (3), and (4) become satisfied.” That would mean that, when an open case is resolved, the time period starts anew. My understanding is that a Rule violation would not occur if one of the conditions becomes unsatisfied during the time period. So, if a new judicial case is opened during a time period when (1), (2), (3), and (4) were satisfied, then the player would not be REQUIRED to award (revoke) the patent title until a later time when all four conditions are satisfied again.
BUS: Ossification CFJs
I CFJ this statement: Agora is ossified. I CFJ this statement: Rule 1698 (Ossification) is in effect. Arguement: Under Rule 1698, "Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable combination of actions by players to cause arbitrary rule changes to be made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted within a four-week period." I can prove that "arbitrary rule changes" are IMPOSSIBLE by identifying a proposed rule change that would be IMPOSSIBLE to adopt within the four week period. There are many rule changes that are IMPOSSIBLE to adopt. Here is one example of an IMPOSSIBLE rule change: "Enact a power 100 Rule that provides, 'It is IMPOSSIBLE to change the Rules, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.' Leave the Ruleset otherwise unchanged." That rule change CANNOT take effect because the Ossification rule itself would prevent that rule change from taking effect. Another rule IMPOSSIBLE rule change is: "Repeal Rule 1698 (Ossification). Enact a power 100 rule that procides, 'It is IMPOSSIBLE to change the Rules, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.'" That rule change CANNOT go into effect, because it is an "inseperable group of changes to the gamestate would cause Agora to become ossified," and is thus prevented from going into effect by Rule 1698 itself. I have established that, if Rule 1698 took effect, then Agora is ossified. Here's where it gets confusing. If I am right, then Rule 1698 may have prevented itself from taking effect! That is because enacting Rule 1698 changes the game state in a manner that ossifies Agora, and "If any other single change or inseperable group of changes to the gamestate would cause Agora to become ossified . . . it is cancelled and does not occur, rules to the contrary notwithstanding." That means that the enactment of Rule 1698 was "canceled and does not occur." It also means that, when the ruleset was ratified with Rule 1698 in it, that action was “canceled and does not occur.” BUT! The only thing that cancels the enactment of the rule is the rule itself! So, Rule 1698 cycles infinitely between cancelling itself and not being cancelled. I think that makes one or both of these CFJs PARADOXICAL. Evidence: Rule 1698 Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable combination of actions by players to cause arbitrary rule changes to be made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted within a four-week period. If, but for this rule, the net effect of a proposal would cause Agora to become ossified, or would cause Agora to cease to exist, it cannot take effect, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. If any other single change or inseperable group of changes to the gamestate would cause Agora to become ossified, or would cause Agora to cease to exist, it is cancelled and does not occur, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8215-8234
or a while (no pun intended): if a broken proposal makes > it to its voting period, even if the error is then discovered, it tends not > to percolate through to everyone doing the voting, and the proposal gets > adopted anyway. I've been trying to get around this by just endorsing the > proposal's author, on the basis that e's the most likely to notice if there > is a problem and can then change eir vote to AGAINST, but that has its own > problems. I feel this is a fairly neat solution with enough safeguards to > stop it being abused. ] > > [ This second version removes reliance on the Assessor to support the action, > and adds protection against the Speaker's delay (which would function here > as a veto). ] > > Enact a new rule, "Cancelling Erroneous Proposals", Power=3.0, with the > following text: > > During the voting period of an Agoran decision determining whether or not > to adopt a proposal, its author CAN with support cancel the decision. > > It is RECOMMENDED that this ability only be used if the proposal contains > a textual error preventing it from having the effect its author intended. > > The Speaker is not eligible to object to an announcement of intent to > perform an action permitted by this rule. > > Amend Rule 955, "Determining the Will of Agora", by adding the following list > item to the unnumbered list in between the two previously existing items: > > - If the decision has been cancelled, as permitted by rules of power 3 or >greater, the outcome is instead CANCELLED. > > // > ID: 8227 > Title: Fresh start v2 > Adoption index: 3.1 > Author: Falsifian > Co-authors: G. > > > If nch has publicly consented to abide by the rules in clear reference > to this proposal, and not withdrawn consent, then > Register nch and grant em 3 blots. > > [Comment: Instead of withholding the welcome package, this version > uses blots, with the intention to prevent victory, as a more > appropriate penalty. I expect em to expunge all three approximately by > the time e would otherwise be able to register again.] > > // > ID: 8228 > Title: Active Officers > Adoption index: 3.0 > Author: G. > Co-authors: Jason Cobb > > > Amend Rule 2160 (Deputisation) by replacing: > A player (the deputy) > with: > An player acting on eir own behalf (the deputy) > > > Amend Rule 2472/2 (Office Incompatibilities) by inserting this > paragraph: > A zombie who holds one or more offices is Overpowered. > after the paragraph beginning: > A player is Overpowered if e holds two offices which are > incompatible with each other. > > // > ID: 8229 > Title: freeing up space > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: G. > Co-authors: > > > [The universe is imploding! Can any pro-spaaace heroes rush to the > rescue and propose fixes in time to convince players to keep it???] > > Repeal the following rules in this order: > Rule 2588 (Sectors) > Rule 2589 (Galaxy Maintenance) > Rule 2590 (The Astronomor) > Rule 2591 (Spaceships) > Rule 2592 (Spaceship Energy) > Rule 2593 (Space Battles) > Rule 2594 (Fame) > > // > ID: 8230 > Title: Close the wormhole > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: Murphy > Co-authors: > > > Amend Rule 2591 (Spaceships) by replacing this text: > > Spaceships are a class of fixed asset, > > with this text: > > Spaceships are a class of indestructible fixed asset, > > Set each player's Fame to 0. > > // > ID: 8231 > Title: Three-dimensional space v1.1 > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: Murphy > Co-authors: Aris > > > Amend Rule 2588 (Sectors) to read: > > Sectors are entities. Each Sector has an ID number, which is an > ordered list of three coordinates, each of which is one of > (-1, 0, +1). There is one Sector for each such list. These ID > numbers are ordered by their first coordinate, with ties broken > by the second, then the third. > > If no Spaceship is in a particular Sector, then that Sector is > "empty"; otherwise it is "occupied". > > Two Sectors are "adjacent" if one of their coordinates differ by > exactly 1 and their others are the same. > > Repeal Rule 2589 (Galaxy Maintenance). > > Move spaceships to Sectors as follows, based on their owners: > > (-1, -1, -1) omd >
BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Weekly Report
Notice of honor: +1 aris (tribute to the shogun) -1 d Margaux (claiming title of honorless worm) On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 6:28 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > Herald's Weekly report > > Date of Last Report: 21 Jul 2019 > Date of This Report: 28 Jul 2019 > > Karma Entity > - -- > > +5 Aris <= SHOGUN > > - ABOVE +4 STAND THE SAMURAI > > +4 G. > +3 Trigon > +2 Jason Cobb > +2 twg > +1 Falsifian > +1 omd > 00 Rance > 00 Tenhigitsune > -1 Agora > -1 nch > -1 Hālian > -1 Gaelan > -2 CuddleBeam > -2 Jacob Arduino > -3 R. Lee > -3 Murphy > -4 D. Margaux > > - BELOW -4 LIE THE GAMMAS > > <= HONOURLESS WORM > > - -- > > All other entities have 0 Karma (0's included on the list > indicate an honour change since the last report). > Notations of player/not-player and zombie status above are > not complete switch reports, so are not self-ratifying. > > Notices of Honour: > > Jason Cobb (23 Jul 2019) > +1 twg: well-written and extensive judgement [CFJ 3756] for a slightly > careless question > -1 Jason Cobb: calling a CFJ on a statement with a slightly obvious > answer, putting something pretty clearly wrong in CFJ arguments > > Proposal 8204 (took effect 23 Jule 2019) > - Tenhigitsune's karma set to 0. > - Agora's karma set to -1. > > R. Lee (22 Jul 2019) > -1 nch for taking my honour for dumb reasons > +1 Jason Cobb for being a cool new playing dude > > nch (22 Jul 2019) > +1 G. for bottom-posting. > -1 R. Lee for top-posting. > > [New Week 22-Jul] > > Trigon (21 Jul 2019) > +1 G. for starting a discussion on honour > -1 Rance for being inactive and in the positive > > [time of last report] > > twg (18 Jul 2019) > +1 Aris (dealing with a complicated distribution) > -1 Hālian (being a zombie with joint highest karma) > > [New Week 15-Jul] > > R. Lee (8 Jul 2019) > -1 R. Lee for the whole ADoP tomfoolery > +1 omd for good cfj judgements consistently > > [New Week 08-Jul] > > R. Lee (7 Jul 2019) > +1 Jason Cobb (working to resolve delayed decisions) > -1 D. Margaux (dereliction of duty) > > Falsifian (7 Jul 2019) > +1 Jason Cobb (working to resolve delayed decisions) > -1 D. Margaux (dereliction of duty) > > [New Week 01-Jul] > [New Week 24-Jun] > > Murphy (20 Jun 2019) > -1 Murphy (dragging heels on Prime Minister election) > +1 D. Margaux (getting it moving again) > > [New Week 17-Jun] > > Telnaior, via Master G. (13 Jun 2019) > -1 D. Margaux (church and state should show mutual respect) > +1 Corona (let us honor the living dead - some more living than others) > > G. (13 Jun 2019) > -1 D. Margaux (for disrespecting a judge before the court - "render unto > Ceasar" and so forth) > +1 L (a zombie's honor is not reflected in eir master's mistakes) > > Aris (12 Jun 2019) > -1 Aris - Resigning Arbitor with work left undone > +1 G. - Doing said work > > [New Week 10-Jun] > [New Week 03-Jun] > > Falsifian (30 May 2019) > +1 Rance, for contributing to our collective duty. > -1 D. Margaux, founder of the Church of the Ritual, for ignoring the > > G. (28 May 2019) > -1 G., for leaving offices before vacation but forgetting about judge > status. > +1 Aris, for having to re-assign. > > [New Week 27-May] > > twg (26 May 2019) > -1 twg (the aforementioned transgressions) > +1 D. Margaux (randomly selected from people cleaning up the mess) > > [New Week 20-May] > [New Week 13-May] > [New Week 06-May] > [New Week 29-Apr] > > Falsifian (28 Apr 2019) > -1 Corona for slowing down the PM election by running for PM. > +1 Aris for working to get Agora moving while running for PM. > > Murphy (28 Apr 2019) > I transfer a karma from myself (for delayed ADoP reporting) to James > Cook (for temporary deputisation). > > Aris (22 Apr 2019) > -1 G. for not voting on Proposal 8172 despite saying that e would, and > even after many players had endorsed em > +1 G. for restarting the game by publishing the Referee report and > proposal resolutions > > [New Week 22-Apr] > [New Week 15-Apr] > > Falsifian (10 Apr 2019) > +1 G. For getting the ball rolling again, and for the cute "(d) with > Notice." > -1 twg for disappearing without a trace (I hope e's okay, though). > > [New Week 08-Apr] > [Time of Last Report] > [New Week 01-Apr] > [New Week 25-Mar] > [New Week 18-Mar] > > G. (16 Mar 2019) > +1 Agora (zeroing out Agora is a Herald's task) > -1 Trigon (general karma decay, been up there a w
Re: BUS: Scrub scrub
Me too > On Jul 18, 2019, at 12:48 AM, Edward Murphy wrote: > > I expunge a blot from myself. >
Re: BUS: Re: Space stuff
> On Jul 24, 2019, at 9:00 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > I destroy my spaceship. I do not currently intend to recreate it. > > -Aris I do likewise > >> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 5:27 PM Rebecca wrote: >> >> Actually that battle doesnt work because my current ship is in a battle >> with CB >> >> so I destroy it, create a new one, and challenge Jason Cobb to a space >> battle. The resolvor is Halian the astronomor, I spend 0 energy. >> >>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:23 AM Rebecca wrote: >>> >>> I spend 0 energy on that battle. >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:22 AM Rebecca >> wrote: >>> I act on Jason Cobb's behalf to have em create a spaceship. I challenge >>> em to a space battle. The resolvor is the astronomor, Halian. On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:21 AM Rebecca >>> wrote: > Jason Cobb and I consented to the below contract > > 0. The name of this contract is "Space Shenanigans". > > 1. Only R. Lee and Jason Cobb CAN be parties to this contract. If any > other person becomes a party to this contract, e immediately ceases to >>> be a > party and, the rest of this contract not withstanding, CANNOT perform >>> any > actions authorized by this contract. > > 2. A party to this contract CAN cease being a party by announcement. > > 3. A party to this contract CAN act on behalf of another party to this > contract to perform the following actions: > > - Create a spaceship > - Destroy a spaceship > > 4. One party to this contract is the "Attacker". The other party to >> this > contract is the "Defender". > > 5. At the initiation of this contract, Jason Cobb is the Attacker, and >>> R. > Lee is the Defender. > > 6. In any Space Battle between parties to this contract, the Attacker > SHALL expend more than 0 energy, and the Defender SHALL expend 0 >> energy. > > 7. If either party to this contract has Fame of either 10 or -10, any > party to this contract CAN, by announcement, cause the occupants of >> the > roles Attacker and Defender to switch places. > > > > -- > From R. Lee > -- From R. Lee >>> >>> >>> -- >>> From R. Lee >>> >> >> >> -- >> From R. Lee >>
BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
I rescue from these two CFJs. Although I believe my reasoning was correct, I do not feel strongly about it and the cfjs have engendered enough controversy that I think it worthwhile for another judge to weigh in. > On Jul 7, 2019, at 9:33 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > 3745 Motion for D. Margaux to reconsider [Due Sat 13 Jul 2019 08:23:08] > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3745 > There exists an Agoran Decision to adopt a proposal with the title > 'It's caused enough trouble already' and with a valid adoption > index. > > 3744 Motion for D. Margaux to reconsider [Due Sat 13 Jul 2019 08:23:08] > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3744 > There exists a proposal with the title 'It's caused enough trouble > already' and with a valid adoption index.
Re: BUS: Intent
So sorry for being MIA. Real life has been ridiculously busy of late. I resign all offices I hold. I point two fingers at myself, first for being late on the last referee report and second for being late in assessing the last set of assessable proposals. On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 8:55 PM Rebecca wrote: > I intend to deputise for the Referee to publish eir weekly reporrt > -- D. Margaux
BUS: Re: OFF: End of October zombie auction (corrected)
I pay 19 coins to flip cuddle beam’s master switch to myself I transfer all of eir liquid assets to myself > On Oct 14, 2019, at 11:22 PM, James Cook wrote: > > This is a corrected version of my earlier announcement of the end of > the October zombie auction. > > The October zombie auction has ended. > > On 2019-10-07 at 12:12 UTC, I initiated a zombie auction. It ended 2019-10-14 > at 12:12 UTC. Here are the lots, winners, and winning bids. > > Lot Winner Bid, in Coins > --- -- ----- > Cuddle Beam D. Margaux 19 > Walker Murphy 14 > > Agora is the Auctioneer in this auction. > > -- > - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie life cycle
Speaking of zombies, here's a public message to ward off any zombification On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 6:54 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 1:59 PM, James Cook > wrote: > > > On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 12:08, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 12:21 AM, James Cook jc...@cs.berkeley.edu > wrote: > > > > > > > I intend, with notice, to flip Jacob Arduino's master switch to > Agora. > > > > I intend, with notice, to deregister Jacob Arduino. > > > > > > Well remembered! > > > > > > I cause Jacob Arduino to give me all eir coins. > > > > I'm not sure whether that worked. R2466 requires you to "uniquely > > identify the principal and that the action is being taken on behalf of > > that person". You uniquely identified the principale, but I'm not sure > > whether you identified that the action is being taken on behalf of em. > > The wording of that rule is a little funny, but it might be intended > > to mean you need to explicitly say you're acting on behalf. > > > > -- > > - Falsifian > > I agree with your interpretation of the rule's intention, but I would > argue that "to cause to do " is unambiguously > synonymous with "to act on 's behalf to do ". D. > Margaux used to use that syntax all the time [1] and nobody batted an > eyelid. > > -twg > > [1] > https://www.mail-archive.com/search?a=1=agora-business%40agoranomic.org=cause=D.+Margaux > -- D. Margaux
BUS: Re: OFF: October Zombie Auction
I bid 7 coins on this auctinon > On Oct 7, 2019, at 8:12 AM, James Cook wrote: > > I initiate a zombie auction, with the following lots (each zombie a > separate lot) ordered as follows (highest-bid first): > > 1. Cuddle Beam > 2. Walker > > Agora is the Auctioneer, and the Registrar is the Announcer. The > currency is Coins with a minimum bid of 1. > > -- > - Falsifian
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto: Interesting Chambers v2
I point my finger at Murphy for uttering the forbidden name On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 4:54 PM Edward Murphy wrote: > ais523 wrote: > > > On Sat, 2019-09-28 at 10:26 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> But yes, this depends on assuming, in the absence of an explicit > >> definition, that "the ruleset" in R1681 and R1030 is simply shorthand > >> for "the set of all rules". (is there another common definition that > >> makes sense?) > > > > For me, the natural reading is "a report about what rules exist". You'd > > expect that to contain all the rules, but can imagine an unreported > > rule. > > At one point many years ago, we actually either had or at least > suggested a rule along the lines of: > >Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Rulekeepor's reports >need not include this rule. Clearly identifying this rule is the >class 1 crime of Uttering the Forbidden Name. > > -- D. Margaux
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8251-8252
I bid 19 coins on the auction On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 5:23 PM Edward Murphy wrote: > Jason Cobb wrote: > > > On 10/12/19 5:17 PM, Edward Murphy wrote: > >> and cause my zombie to endorse me on each. > > > > This is INEFFECTIVE. Gaelan used to be your zombie, but e has flipped > > eir Master to emself. > > Ah, so e has. > > I bid 14 coins in the current zombie auction. > > -- D. Margaux
Re: BUS: [Proposal] Player cleanup
I create the following proposal: Title: Deregistration AI: 3 Author: D. Margaux Flip the Citizenship of the following player to Unregistered: - Gaelan -- D. Margaux
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Agoran Directory
Hello everyone [this is a zombification prevention message] > On Jan 1, 2020, at 12:16 AM, James Cook via agora-business > wrote: > > >> >> * D. Margaux [3] dmargaux000 at gmail.com25 Aug 18 >
Re: BUS: [Registrar] March zombie auction status
I flip my master switch to myself > On Apr 1, 2020, at 6:01 PM, James Cook via agora-business > wrote: > > This is an unofficial report on the ongoing zombie auction. All times > UTC. > > The auction began 2020-03-29 at 00:45, and will end 2020-04-05 at 00:45 > unless something unusual happens (e.g. all the lots cease to be > zombies). > > Lots: > > 1. Trigon > 2. D. Margaux > 3. Baron von Vaderham > 4. Nch > 5. pikhq > 6. Walker > 7. ATMunn > > > Successful bids: > > Amount (Coins) Bidder Time (UTC)Notes > -- -- - > 347 G. 2020-04-01 21:12 > 100 Alexis 2020-03-30 21:34 > 40 Falsifian2020-04-01 21:58 > 14 Murphy 2020-03-29 21:54 > 10 PSS [0] 2020-03-29 02:04 > 1 R. Lee 2020-03-29 02:45 > > > Unsuccessful bids: > > Amount (Coins) Bidder Time (UTC)Notes > -- -- - > 101 Jason2020-03-31 14:10 Already had a zombie. > 21 Jason2020-03-29 22:12 Already had a zombie. > > > [0] Abbreviated to save space: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > > - Falsifian
