Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes
On 1 Oct 2008, at 05:14, Ian Kelly wrote: It categorizes adopted proposals as spam, rejected proposals as non-spam, and votes against spam? -root Bingo!
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: How to win by bribery
On 1 Oct 2008, at 04:16, Ed Murphy wrote: I need to check the exact details of Goethe's and BobTHJ's sell tickets. I have the votes as 15F / 16A without those. Will take care of it later tonight. Haha. It is all for naught. ais523 was trying to continue eir long-running streak of winning once a month. Since e failed to remember to actually Monster-deputize for the Assessor, that streak is now over. Way to be careful in the final moments, ais...
DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes voting
On 1 Oct 2008, at 13:32, Bayes wrote: Bayes votes as follows: 5732 FORx2 5733 AGAINSTx2 -- bayes 2008-10-01 13:10:18 +0100 IT WORKS!! The machine works!! Although I'm kind of surprised it agreed with my titles... Really, neither of them is a good proposal. HOWEVER. That's irrelevant. It works!
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:14 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It categorizes adopted proposals as spam, rejected proposals as non-spam, and votes against spam? The other way around. It votes FOR stuff like adopted proposals.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes
On 1 Oct 2008, at 15:10, comex wrote: On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:14 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It categorizes adopted proposals as spam, rejected proposals as non-spam, and votes against spam? The other way around. It votes FOR stuff like adopted proposals. Oh. Yeah.
DIS: Re: BUS: late reports
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend, with 2 support, to initiate a criminal CFJ alleging that BobTHJ violated Rule 2143 by failing to publish a Scorekeepor's Report last week (eir last report was published on 11 Sept.) I'm guilty here (though I fully intend to publish such a report) I intend, with 2 support, to initiate a criminal CFJ alleging that BobTHJ violated Rule 2143 by failing to publish an Ambassador's Report last week (eir last report was published on 16 Sept.) This is a low priority office and requires only a monthly report, IIRC. BobTHJ
DIS: RE: Re: BUS: How to win by bribery
Taral wrote: On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 4:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Proposal 5707 has been adopted, awarding a win to ais523. You owe me 8 VP. :P Yep, I'll transfer it to you later today or tomorrow once it's generally established that the adoption worked. Unfortunately, I'm having quite a problem reading my messages; my email crashed yesterday and all the messages since have arrived in random order. Also, I did send the deputisation for the monster for the Assessor to the lists; but I had to do it from a different account and it seemed not to get through. I have proof of having sent the message, and I'll post it to a-b along with all the headers when I get access to that account again. -- ais523 winmail.dat
Re: DIS: RE: Re: BUS: How to win by bribery
On 1 Oct 2008, at 15:50, Alexander Smith wrote: Also, I did send the deputisation for the monster for the Assessor to the lists; but I had to do it from a different account and it seemed not to get through. I have proof of having sent the message, and I'll post it to a-b along with all the headers when I get access to that account again. Sorry. Things only happen when distributed to the majority of the list.
DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Geoffrey Spear Sent: Wed 01/10/2008 13:30 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707 On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend, with 2 support, to make the decision on whether to adopt proposal 5707 democratic. I support. With Murphy and woggle's support, I make the decision on whether to adopt Proposal 5707 Democratic. --Wooble Fails, the decision in question didn't exist when woggle attempted to democratise it, so eir action failed due to not clearly specifying what it was talking about. -- ais523 winmail.dat
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: How to win by bribery
That isn't a miswording, I sent the message but I had to send it from a different address, and it seems not to have arrived. H. Distributor Taral, can you check a-o to see if something got stuck there? Note that it's worth 8VP to you, quite possibly, as arguably if my deputisation doesn't arrive some time the proposal didn't technically pass. -- ais523 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of comex Sent: Wed 01/10/2008 03:30 To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: How to win by bribery On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 5:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Proposal 5707 has been adopted Not until the Assessor determines the option selected by Agora. Uh... how silly, to miss a monthly win because you misworded a message. winmail.dat
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fails, the decision in question didn't exist when woggle attempted to democratise it, so eir action failed due to not clearly specifying what it was talking about. How much clearer could it be than specifying the exact ID number of the proposal it intended to democritize? I call for judgement, barring ais523, on Proposal 5707 is a democratic proposal. I agree with ais523, though it's not really a matter of clarity. Per R1728, A player authorized to perform a dependent action (the initiator) CAN publicly announce eir intent to do so..., thus announcing intent to perform a dependent action is itself a regulated action. At the time woggle announced eir intent, e was not authorized to perform the dependent action (which is also regulated), so e COULD NOT effectively announce eir intent at that time. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: How to win by bribery
On 1 Oct 2008, at 17:07, Alexander Smith wrote: That isn't a miswording, I sent the message but I had to send it from a different address, and it seems not to have arrived. H. Distributor Taral, can you check a-o to see if something got stuck there? Note that it's worth 8VP to you, quite possibly, as arguably if my deputisation doesn't arrive some time the proposal didn't technically pass. -- ais523 I'm sorry, but _actions only happen when a majority of the list sees it_. See: comex's ratification scam from a while back. You're too late.
RE: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
Wooble wrote: How much clearer could it be than specifying the exact ID number of the proposal it intended to democritize? The intent is to democratise a decision, not a proposal. The decision in question didn't exist, so there is no way woggle can have referred to it. -- ais523 winmail.dat
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 09:26, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wooble wrote: How much clearer could it be than specifying the exact ID number of the proposal it intended to democritize? The intent is to democratise a decision, not a proposal. The decision in question didn't exist, so there is no way woggle can have referred to it. Since proposal numbers are unique and AFAIK it is only possible to initiate a decision on whether to adopt a particular proposal once, I think my intent was unambiguous, the impossibility of it being resolved at the time it was made notwithstanding. -woggle
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 00:02, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have 54 chits.
If the following series of actions would otherwise fail as a whole,
then I take none of them.
{
I deposit 7 1 crops, 4 3 crops, 5 7 crops, 7 8 crops, and 11 9 crops
for 311 chits. This brings me to a total of 365 chits.
This nets you 2590 chits, not 311 chits. By itself I wouldn't consider
this a failure of the transaction.
I withdraw 7 0 crops and 1 4 crop for 355 chits. (It may cost less
than this, but I think it's 355. If I have enough chits to withdraw
the specified crops, I do so and consider the transaction
successful.)
I harvest the numbers of proposals 5700, 5701, 5703, 5704, 5705 if it
exists, and 5707.
You only have four 7 crops remaining after your deposit so the last
two of these would fail...as a result I am considering the entire
transaction a failure.
BobTHJ
RE: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
Well, I didn't say which one. Also, I don't read SELL (5VP) like that at all.
The obvious, and only equitable meaning, is that BobTHJ filed a sell ticket for
5VP, and then voted 5 times as required by the ticket; SELL (5VP) is a vote to
endorse a player who pays 5VP, and multiplying that by 5 is 5 votes to endorse
a player who pays 5VP.
This was obviously BobTHJ's intention, as e was clearly trying to persuade me
to bribe em and a bribe of 25VP for 5 votes would clearly be way above the
amount I was willing to pay. (Contrast my 8VP for 8 votes bribe with Taral.)
The intention of the voter is what matters in determining a vote. If there were
in fact 5 tickets, I didn't fill any of them, because I specified that I was
filling the ticket not a ticket.
--
ais523
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Ian Kelly
Sent: Wed 01/10/2008 17:38
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal
5707
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I act on behalf of the Monster to deputise for the Assessor to send the
following message:
{{{
This message hereby resolves the Agoran Decision on whether to adopt proposal
5707.
The decision chosen by Agora was ADOPTED.
The votes were as follows:
ais523 FORx2
BobTHJ FORx5
comex FORx1
Dvorak Herring AGAINSTx1
Goethe FORx2
Ivan Hope CXXVI FORx1
OscarMeyr AGAINSTx3
Pavitra AGAINSTx1
root AGAINSTx3
Sir Toby AGAINSTx1
Taral FORx8
tusho FORx1
woggle AGAINSTx2
Wooble AGAINSTx5
Totals: FOR 20, AGAINST 16
VI=1.25, AI=1, so ADOPTED.
}}}
CoE: Despite your earlier claim, BobTHJ only voted once on P5707. The
final count was therefore 16 FOR, 16 AGAINST, resulting in an outcome
of REJECTED.
BobTHJ's exact vote was SELL(5VP) x5. This is five sell tickets,
each corresponding to a single vote, not one sell ticket corresponding
to five votes. However, ais523 only filled one of these tickets: I
fill BobTHJ's open sell ticket on proposal 5707, causing em to endorse
me on that vote and therefore vote SELLx5.
-root
winmail.dat
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I didn't say which one. Also, I don't read SELL (5VP) like that at all. The obvious, and only equitable meaning, is that BobTHJ filed a sell ticket for 5VP, and then voted 5 times as required by the ticket; SELL (5VP) is a vote to endorse a player who pays 5VP, and multiplying that by 5 is 5 votes to endorse a player who pays 5VP. The actual wording of the contract does not agree with you. A vote of SELL(X - Y) on an Agoran decision is equivalent to posting a Sell Ticket with a cost of X and voting to endorse the filler of that ticket 5 votes of SELL(X - Y), then, is plainly equivalent to posting 5 Sell Tickets. This was obviously BobTHJ's intention, as e was clearly trying to persuade me to bribe em and a bribe of 25VP for 5 votes would clearly be way above the amount I was willing to pay. (Contrast my 8VP for 8 votes bribe with Taral.) I posted a similar vote, and my intention really was 15 VP for 3 votes. If Taral is cheaper, that's up to em. The intention of the voter is what matters in determining a vote. Um, no. The announcement of the vote is what matters in determining a vote. If I accidentally vote FOR when I intended to vote AGAINST, then I'm just out of luck. If there were in fact 5 tickets, I didn't fill any of them, because I specified that I was filling the ticket not a ticket. Possibly. Either way, you didn't fill enough of them. -root
RE: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
root wrote: The actual wording of the contract does not agree with you. A vote of SELL(X - Y) on an Agoran decision is equivalent to posting a Sell Ticket with a cost of X and voting to endorse the filler of that ticket 5 votes of SELL(X - Y), then, is plainly equivalent to posting 5 Sell Tickets. No, it isn't. In most programming languages, f(x) * 5 calculates f(x) and then multiplies the result each time. Therefore, the only sensible interpretation of the programming-like abbreviation SELL (5VP) x 5 is to file a sell ticket for 5VP, and vote 5 times to endorse the filler of that ticket. You're trying to multiply the function itself, rather than its result. -- ais523
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: root wrote: The actual wording of the contract does not agree with you. A vote of SELL(X - Y) on an Agoran decision is equivalent to posting a Sell Ticket with a cost of X and voting to endorse the filler of that ticket 5 votes of SELL(X - Y), then, is plainly equivalent to posting 5 Sell Tickets. No, it isn't. In most programming languages, f(x) * 5 calculates f(x) and then multiplies the result each time. Therefore, the only sensible interpretation of the programming-like abbreviation SELL (5VP) x 5 is to file a sell ticket for 5VP, and vote 5 times to endorse the filler of that ticket. You're trying to multiply the function itself, rather than its result. In the words of Kelly, the rules are not a computer program. FOO x 3 is our standard shorthand for casting three votes of FOO, not for casting a single vote of FOO x 3. -root
RE: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
root: FOO x 3 is our standard shorthand for casting three votes of FOO, not for casting a single vote of FOO x 3. Yes, but that doesn't help tell our two situations apart, as it doesn't explain whether FOO is expanded before or after the multiplication. As a result, your vote probably fails altogether due to the ambiguity, as does BobTHJ's. -- ais523 winmail.dat
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: root: FOO x 3 is our standard shorthand for casting three votes of FOO, not for casting a single vote of FOO x 3. Yes, but that doesn't help tell our two situations apart, as it doesn't explain whether FOO is expanded before or after the multiplication. As a result, your vote probably fails altogether due to the ambiguity, as does BobTHJ's. To put it in algebraic terms, FOO expands to a vote. The multiplication multiplies the number of votes. I don't see what's ambiguous about that. -root
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:24, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: root: FOO x 3 is our standard shorthand for casting three votes of FOO, not for casting a single vote of FOO x 3. Yes, but that doesn't help tell our two situations apart, as it doesn't explain whether FOO is expanded before or after the multiplication. As a result, your vote probably fails altogether due to the ambiguity, as does BobTHJ's. -- ais523 Section 11 may have some bearing on this issue: 11. For the purposes of Buy and Sell Tickets, if the specified action is to vote in a certain manner on an Agoran Decision, a party only fills eir obligation to take the specified action if at the end of that decision's voting period e has cast a number of valid votes equal to eir voting limit on that decision and all those votes are in the manner described in the Buy or Sell Ticket. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, but that doesn't help tell our two situations apart, as it doesn't explain whether FOO is expanded before or after the multiplication. As a result, your vote probably fails altogether due to the ambiguity, as does BobTHJ's. -- ais523 Section 11 may have some bearing on this issue: 11. For the purposes of Buy and Sell Tickets, if the specified action is to vote in a certain manner on an Agoran Decision, a party only fills eir obligation to take the specified action if at the end of that decision's voting period e has cast a number of valid votes equal to eir voting limit on that decision and all those votes are in the manner described in the Buy or Sell Ticket. Er, I'm afraid I don't see the relevance. -root
RE: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
root: To put it in algebraic terms, FOO expands to a vote. The multiplication multiplies the number of votes. I don't see what's ambiguous about that. The fact that FOO might not be a constant. It's ambiguous whether you're multiplying the result of the expansion of one mention of FOO, or if you're generating 5 separate copies of FOO, which isn't even a vote. Let me expand BobTHJ's sell ticket literally, fixing the grammar: [I] post[ing] a Sell Ticket with a cost of 5VP and vot[e/ing] to endorse the filler of that ticket x5 Notice where the x5 ends up after the expansion. That looks awfully to me like voting x5, based on one Sell Ticket. The ambiguity is in whether the SELL(5VP) or the x5 is expanded first. You seem to think the x5 is expanded first, but I still can't see any evidence for this view. -- ais523 winmail.dat
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fails, the decision in question didn't exist when woggle attempted to democratise it, so eir action failed due to not clearly specifying what it was talking about. How much clearer could it be than specifying the exact ID number of the proposal it intended to democritize? I call for judgement, barring ais523, on Proposal 5707 is a democratic proposal. I agree with ais523, though it's not really a matter of clarity. Per R1728, A player authorized to perform a dependent action (the initiator) CAN publicly announce eir intent to do so..., thus announcing intent to perform a dependent action is itself a regulated action. At the time woggle announced eir intent, e was not authorized to perform the dependent action (which is also regulated), so e COULD NOT effectively announce eir intent at that time. Ooh, I didn't know that. I think there's at least a few times I announced intent before I could do something anticipating that I'd be able to do it a few days later. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: How to win by bribery
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: On 1 Oct 2008, at 17:07, Alexander Smith wrote: That isn't a miswording, I sent the message but I had to send it from a different address, and it seems not to have arrived. H. Distributor Taral, can you check a-o to see if something got stuck there? Note that it's worth 8VP to you, quite possibly, as arguably if my deputisation doesn't arrive some time the proposal didn't technically pass. -- ais523 I'm sorry, but _actions only happen when a majority of the list sees it_. See: comex's ratification scam from a while back. You're too late. Hold on here. Now we get to the point where a legitimate communication is held up. Does this violate R101 participation rights? -Goethe
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Er, I'm afraid I don't see the relevance. If multiple tickets were created, filling one would be sufficient to require the voter to vote to eir limit. If two such tickets were filled with different options, e'd be in trouble. -- hopefully minor evil
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The ambiguity is in whether the SELL(5VP) or the x5 is expanded first. You seem to think the x5 is expanded first, but I still can't see any evidence for this view. VOTE x 5 is, by game custom, shorthand for I perform the action of casting the vote VOTE 5 times. Section 13 of the vote market agreement says that a vote a of SELL means the voter posts a sell ticket and conditionally endorses the filler of the ticket. So BobTHJ, in casting 5 votes of SELL, posted 5 SELL tickets, casting votes conditionally endorsing the filler of each. By Rule 2127, endorsing another voter counts as casting a vote, not the maximum number of allowable votes, on the decision in question. BobTHJ is probably in breach of Section 11 of the Vote Market since e failed to cast a number of votes equal to eir voting limit, but that's a matter for the equity courts.
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: root: To put it in algebraic terms, FOO expands to a vote. The multiplication multiplies the number of votes. I don't see what's ambiguous about that. The fact that FOO might not be a constant. It's ambiguous whether you're multiplying the result of the expansion of one mention of FOO, or if you're generating 5 separate copies of FOO, which isn't even a vote. Let me expand BobTHJ's sell ticket literally, fixing the grammar: [I] post[ing] a Sell Ticket with a cost of 5VP and vot[e/ing] to endorse the filler of that ticket x5 Notice where the x5 ends up after the expansion. That looks awfully to me like voting x5, based on one Sell Ticket. The ambiguity is in whether the SELL(5VP) or the x5 is expanded first. You seem to think the x5 is expanded first, but I still can't see any evidence for this view. It's not a macro. The agreement clearly refers to SELL(5VP) as being a conditional vote. -root
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: root: FOO x 3 is our standard shorthand for casting three votes of FOO, not for casting a single vote of FOO x 3. Yes, but that doesn't help tell our two situations apart, as it doesn't explain whether FOO is expanded before or after the multiplication. As a result, your vote probably fails altogether due to the ambiguity, as does BobTHJ's. To put it in algebraic terms, FOO expands to a vote. The multiplication multiplies the number of votes. I don't see what's ambiguous about that. Contracts aren't algebra. Perhaps we should hear from BobTHJ about intent. -G.
RE: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
root wrote: It's not a macro. The agreement clearly refers to SELL(5VP) as being a conditional vote. In that case, it has to be able to /retroactively/ create a sell ticket at the time the voting period ends. Does the act of casting the vote create a sell ticket? Voting and creating sell tickets are two different things. SELL(5VP) does two things: it creates a sell ticket, and it casts a vote. Your argument, that SELL (5VP) is a conditional vote, would create the sell ticket at the time the proposal is resolved, which is clearly absurd. Clearly, SELL(5VP) is an abbreviation for doing something more than just voting, it's an action that creates a sell ticket and endorses the filler of that ticket. In other words, it is a macro. -- ais523 winmail.dat
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Contracts aren't algebra. Perhaps we should hear from BobTHJ about intent. -G. I realize that. I was only casting it that way because ais523 was insisting on interpreting the vote as an algebraic expression to be parsed. -root
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:50, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Contracts aren't algebra. Perhaps we should hear from BobTHJ about intent. -G. FWIW my intent was to sell all 5 of my votes for a total of 5VP. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SELL(5VP) does two things: it creates a sell ticket, and it casts a vote. Your argument, that SELL (5VP) is a conditional vote, would create the sell ticket at the time the proposal is resolved, which is clearly absurd. No, my argument is that it's a conditional vote that, per the contract, creates a sell ticket when cast. -root
RE: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
root: No, my argument is that it's a conditional vote that, per the contract, creates a sell ticket when cast. Well my argument is that as many people put a different interpretation on it, you can't claim that you are /unambiguously/ correct; BobTHJ and I both went with a different, entirely reasonable, interpretation of the abbreviation. Either your interpretation is wrong, or it is ambiguous which interpretation is correct; in both cases, the proposal passes. -- ais523 winmail.dat
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well my argument is that as many people put a different interpretation on it, you can't claim that you are /unambiguously/ correct; BobTHJ and I both went with a different, entirely reasonable, interpretation of the abbreviation. Either your interpretation is wrong, or it is ambiguous which interpretation is correct; in both cases, the proposal passes. False dilemma. It's also possible that your interpretation is wrong, in which case the proposal fails. -root
RE: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
root: False dilemma. It's also possible that your interpretation is wrong, in which case the proposal fails. At least two people came up with that interpretation in good faith. It certainly isn't unambiguously wrong. -- ais523 winmail.dat
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: root: False dilemma. It's also possible that your interpretation is wrong, in which case the proposal fails. At least two people came up with that interpretation in good faith. It certainly isn't unambiguously wrong. It's possible to misunderstand something without it being ambiguous. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On 1 Oct 2008, at 19:06, Bayes wrote:
I submit the following proposal, titled None the (AI=1):
{{{
Was only meant to send once, sorry.
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:50, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Contracts aren't algebra. Perhaps we should hear from BobTHJ about intent. -G. FWIW my intent was to sell all 5 of my votes for a total of 5VP. BobTHJ If the two parties (ais523 and BobTHJ) in an exchange governed by a contract agree to an interpretation of an ambiguous transaction, and the interpretation is within the realm of reason (a possible reasonable interpretation) it should be honored. In this case of disagreement between parties (root vs. ais523) then you have to go to strict impartial logical interpretation etc. -Goethe
RE: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
Goethe: In this case of disagreement between parties (root vs. ais523) then you have to go to strict impartial logical interpretation etc. I thought you were a fan of equity? Besides, this is a case where a dispute in the meaning of a contract affects something that should be determined entirely by the rules. As a completely different argument, it's arguable that a vote of SELL can work simply because the resulting tickets don't specify an action and thus aren't actually sell tickets, by the definition of sell tickets. This would lead to a vote to endorse the filler of a non-existent ticket, or voting the default in the case that the ticket is not filled. As the ticket does not exist, it cannot be filled, yet it cannot be in an unfilled state either, so neither vote ever happens. -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: Re: BUS: RE: another CFJ on the vote market
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:19, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wooble wrote: I CFJ on the following statements, barring ais523: I CFJ on the following statement, barring root: A vote that relies on terminology defined in a public contract satisfies R683(c)'s requirement to clearly identify the option selected by the voter, even if the voter misunderstood the meaning of the terminology in question, or it is ambiguous, unclear, or disputed what the terminology in question means in a particular context. UNDETERMINED (we can probably construct a terminology that is clear in some context in which it could be used but not in some other context and a misunderstanding that is sufficiently bizarre as to not be a problem). Can we please try for more specific CFJs that might actually resolve the dispute at hand? -woggle
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On 1 Oct 2008, at 19:05, Bayes wrote:
I submit the following proposal, titled No spring ii office
and (AI=1):
{{{
If proposal 5111 was adopted, amend rule 1871 by adding the
following information:
with this text:
the sum of the source and destination are the nominees, quorum is
1/2 the number of VCs is restricted to players.
[snip]
This is generated by a 4-order markov chain (which acts as order-2
because spaces
are considered tokens). It just runs from a special START token to an
END one. Anyone
have any good ideas to shorten the proposals it outputs? It's kind of
irritating,
because the only ways I can think basically halt it after a while
(and so not reaching
END) and thus just being cut off midsentence.
RE: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Alexander Smith wrote: Goethe: In this case of disagreement between parties (root vs. ais523) then you have to go to strict impartial logical interpretation etc. I thought you were a fan of equity? Besides, this is a case where a dispute in the meaning of a contract affects something that should be determined entirely by the rules. Um, I am. But in the case that an offer of transaction has a range of completely different interpretations by the transacting parties, each with different real effects, one interpretation has to be picked at some stage. Only after it is picked can equity be determined. And equity of course is never perfect; in particular in this case, the result of the vote on this specific proposal was worth the most, and finding a compensation that makes up for it (whichever side prevails) is difficult. So that first decision falls to a matter of fact and there will be a loser (who might get an equity consolation prize).-Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 1 Oct 2008, at 19:05, Bayes wrote:
I submit the following proposal, titled No spring ii office and (AI=1):
{{{
If proposal 5111 was adopted, amend rule 1871 by adding the following
information:
with this text:
the sum of the source and destination are the nominees, quorum is 1/2 the
number of VCs is restricted to players.
[snip]
This is generated by a 4-order markov chain (which acts as order-2 because
spaces
are considered tokens). It just runs from a special START token to an END
one.
Anyone
have any good ideas to shorten the proposals it outputs? It's kind of
irritating,
because the only ways I can think basically halt it after a while (and so not
reaching
END) and thus just being cut off midsentence.
Up the probabilities on reaching END or otherwise weight as preferrable
steps that lead to higher probabilities of END? (may not be too hard to
generate from transition matrix). Might better model the writing principle
of succinct whenever possible, long when necessary that more mirrors a
human editing process.
Or perhaps a non-stationary transition matrix that increases movement
towards END as sentence lengthens (reflection of avoid run-on sentences
human decision).
Other possibility is to develop a second-pass edit capability of the
initial chain.
And long proposals happen when humans write them anyway.
-Goethe
RE: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
CoE: The publisher of the above CoE is not the Assessor. (The assessor didn't publish the original document, so e can't usefully deny CoEs on it anyways.) I don't think that's a genuine CoE (it's not obvious what it's referring to), but the document was published by the Monster deputising for the Assessor. The Assessor SHALL deny or admit CoEs against eir reports, so the Monster can deputise to deny or admit a CoE. -- ais523 winmail.dat
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:41, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: CoE: The publisher of the above CoE is not the Assessor. (The assessor didn't publish the original document, so e can't usefully deny CoEs on it anyways.) I don't think that's a genuine CoE (it's not obvious what it's referring to), but the document was published by the Monster deputising for the Assessor. The Assessor SHALL deny or admit CoEs against eir reports, so the Monster can deputise to deny or admit a CoE. It's a CoE against the statement's self-ratifying claim as to who published it. Anyways, you can't deputise for that because the Assessor did not publish the original document, so e is not obliged to respond to CoEs against it. The assessor's deputy, the Monster, probably is, however. -woggle
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
root wrote: BobTHJ's exact vote was SELL(5VP) x5. This is five sell tickets, each corresponding to a single vote, not one sell ticket corresponding to five votes. However, ais523 only filled one of these tickets: I fill BobTHJ's open sell ticket on proposal 5707, causing em to endorse me on that vote and therefore vote SELLx5. This needs to be clarified in the Vote Market agreement. I don't know whether my intent-in-progress would succeed in doing so, I'll have to review that later when I have more time.
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: Especially with democratization in play, root's vote is unambiguous: SELL (5 VP - AGAINST) x 3, unbought, thus (due to democratization) a single AGAINST. That's the last thing it is given a collection of (some fairly disinterested) parties argue for either interpretation. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
tusho wrote:
On 1 Oct 2008, at 19:05, Bayes wrote:
I submit the following proposal, titled No spring ii office
and (AI=1):
{{{
If proposal 5111 was adopted, amend rule 1871 by adding the
following information:
with this text:
the sum of the source and destination are the nominees, quorum is
1/2 the number of VCs is restricted to players.
[snip]
This is generated by a 4-order markov chain (which acts as order-2
because spaces
are considered tokens). It just runs from a special START token to an
END one. Anyone
have any good ideas to shorten the proposals it outputs? It's kind of
irritating,
because the only ways I can think basically halt it after a while
(and so not reaching
END) and thus just being cut off midsentence.
Make it a bit more grammar-specific and I'll support it for
Mad Scientist.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On 1 Oct 2008, at 20:54, Ed Murphy wrote: Make it a bit more grammar-specific and I'll support it for Mad Scientist. Heh, it wouldn't be able to do Monsterization atm, but I could definitely write one - detecting nouns shouldn't be too hard.
DIS: RE: Re: BUS: Another reason those SELL votes might not have counted
Wooble wrote: On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The text of the contract that defined the options was not published during the voting period, and rule 2172 does not make an allowance for text published /before/ the voting period. BobTHJ published the text of the contract to the PF on 29 Sept. Ah, missed that one, sorry. The votes were made before then IIRC (sorry, my email inbox is all scrambled due to problems my ISP had, comparing times is therefore hard for me atm), so we're in the interesting situation of votes being meaningless at the time they're made but gaining meaning later. This means I have no idea when, or if, the Sell Tickets in question were created... -- ais523 winmail.dat
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: How to win by bribery
On Wednesday 01 October 2008 12:53:00 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Hold on here. Now we get to the point where a legitimate communication is held up. Does this violate R101 participation rights? -Goethe On the other hand, in a case where the sender of the message didn't take the reasonable step of sending email from an address that was subscribed to the mailing lists, I don't think eir rights are being violated by bouncing the message. It's trivial to subscribe the new address to the list and of course e retains the right, if not the ability, to send from eir previously-subscribed address. ... Maybe. I believe the precedent is that the message counts iff it was made in a good faith attempt to communicate with the other list subscribers. Pavitra
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Wednesday 01 October 2008 03:20:04 pm Elliott Hird wrote: On 1 Oct 2008, at 20:54, Ed Murphy wrote: Make it a bit more grammar-specific and I'll support it for Mad Scientist. Heh, it wouldn't be able to do Monsterization atm, but I could definitely write one - detecting nouns shouldn't be too hard. ORLY? I believe it was decided that the most natural Monsterization of judgment was Monsteredict. Can you write a script to make that kind of analysis?
DIS: Re: BUS: RE: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposal 5707
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 1:58 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ais523 wrote: Murphy: In any case, I deny this CoE (to clear up my obligation to respond to it), and will let the relevant CFJ take care of it from here. I publically state that Murphy's attempt to resolve proposal 5707 is subject to a CFJ (whose number has not yet been assigned) and therefore cannot self-ratify. I publically state the same of the Monster's attempts to resolve this decision. (FWIW, the ID numbers will be 2202 through 2205.) All right, four CFJs. That's pretty decent for a potential win. -root
DIS: RE: BUS: Another reason those SELL votes might not have counted
Murphy wrote: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:21:26 -0700 Voting period of Proposal 5707 begins Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:13:41 -0600 Vote Market text published Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:21:26 -0700 Voting period of Proposal 5707 ends Yep, I got the timing wrong, and I've already admitted my mistake. (That's during or close to the period of time during which emails to [EMAIL PROTECTED] got held up for random lengths of time and arrived in random order.) It's still arguable, though, that you can make a conditional vote and only define what it means later; that's what I'm trying to establish with my TETRAHEDRON experiment. -- ais523 winmail.dat
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Another reason those SELL votes might not have counted
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yep, I got the timing wrong, and I've already admitted my mistake. (That's during or close to the period of time during which emails to [EMAIL PROTECTED] got held up for random lengths of time and arrived in random order.) It's still arguable, though, that you can make a conditional vote and only define what it means later; that's what I'm trying to establish with my TETRAHEDRON experiment. Don't be absurd. The meaning of the conditions were not defined after the fact. That text has been in the contract for months. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On 1 Oct 2008, at 22:35, Ben Caplan wrote: I believe it was decided that the most natural Monsterization of judgment was Monsteredict. Can you write a script to make that kind of analysis? Did I say it'd produce the most natural monsterization all the time?
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On 1 Oct 2008, at 23:02, Bayes wrote:
I submit the following proposal, titled Ordinary for a of
ff
(AI=1):
{{{
Repeal rule 2142
Modify Rule 2138, replace: c) A term explicitly defined by that
chamber.
Any information designated to be.
After the voting limit(s) for that switch. That Player remains the
Trial Judge.
That was a pain recently, when it comes to have it created in one
step; an
arbitrarily complex combination of actions (possibly second-class,
and only one
color. If more than once or go into effect more than eir current
VVLOP (i.e.
the number of that.]
}}}
--
bayes 2008-10-01 22:28:33 +0100
It isn't usually meant to submit this fast, but comex fixed it so
that the
proposals were shorter, so this is an example.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: take away the monster's deputy badge
Pavitra wrote:
On Wednesday 01 October 2008 02:26:17 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I submit the following Proposal entitled No More Monster Deputy:
In Rule 2193, remove:
Any Monster (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a
particular office (deputise for that office) if:
(a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of
holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the
office is vacant, would so require if the office were
filled
That's boring.
I submit the following Proposal entitled More Reasonable Monster
Deputy, AI=1, II=1:
{
Wooble is a coauthor of this proposal.
Amend rule 2193 as follows: if the text
Any Monster (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a
particular office (deputise for that office) if:
(a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of
holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the
office is vacant, would so require if the office were
filled
exists in rule 2193, then replace it with the following; otherwise,
insert the following after the paragraph containing the
word Monsteredict:
Any player (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a
particular office (deputise for that office) if:
(a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of
holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the
office is vacant, would so require if the office were
filled); and
(b) a time limit by which the rules require the action to be
performed has expired
}
[Makes fast and sudden deputisation a perk rather than a superpower.]
Wait. What?
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: take away the monster's deputy badge
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any player (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a Uh, you removed Monster; this would just allow *anyone* to deputise without announcing intent.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It isn't usually meant to submit this fast, but comex fixed it so that the proposals were shorter, so this is an example. What exactly is the goal of this? None of these proposals are anything that we might actually consider adopting. -root
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Another reason those SELL votes might not have counted
ais523 wrote: Yep, I got the timing wrong, and I've already admitted my mistake. (That's during or close to the period of time during which emails to [EMAIL PROTECTED] got held up for random lengths of time and arrived in random order.) And that's what happens on my end when (as you probably suspect by now) I respond to earlier e-mails before reading the later ones. It's still arguable, though, that you can make a conditional vote and only define what it means later; that's what I'm trying to establish with my TETRAHEDRON experiment. I don't see why not. It seems functionally equivalent to saying I intend to vote on this later, and then later voting normally (including with a defined-at-the-same-time condition).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On 1 Oct 2008, at 23:09, Ian Kelly wrote: What exactly is the goal of this? None of these proposals are anything that we might actually consider adopting. -root Bayes is a Fully Mechanical Automation of Gamular Playing, Striving to Play in As Many Forms As Possible, Regardless of Skill Level, Although With More Attention Given to That Which it Can Be Best At.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What exactly is the goal of this? None of these proposals are anything that we might actually consider adopting. I would vote to repeal Rule 2142... -- hopefully minor evil
RE: DIS: RE: BUS: Another reason those SELL votes might not have counted
Murphy wrote: I don't see why not. It seems functionally equivalent to saying I intend to vote on this later, and then later voting normally (including with a defined-at-the-same-time condition). Just wait until you see the definition of TETRAHEDRON, then you might change your mind. -- ais523 winmail.dat
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Another reason those SELL votes might not have counted
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't see why not. It seems functionally equivalent to saying I intend to vote on this later, and then later voting normally (including with a defined-at-the-same-time condition). Not if the definition comes after the end of the voting period. -- hopefully minor evil
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: On 1 Oct 2008, at 23:09, Ian Kelly wrote: What exactly is the goal of this? None of these proposals are anything that we might actually consider adopting. Bayes is a Fully Mechanical Automation of Gamular Playing, Striving to Play in As Many Forms As Possible, Regardless of Skill Level, Although With More Attention Given to That Which it Can Be Best At. Funny, I don't get BAYES out of that at all. What alphabet are you using?
RE: Re: DIS: RE: RE: Distribution of proposals 5732-5733
tusho wrote: I act on behalf of ais523 to cause ais523 to retract any previous votes on proposal 5733 and vote FORx2 it. How? -- ais523 winmail.dat
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Another reason those SELL votes might not have counted
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Murphy wrote: I don't see why not. It seems functionally equivalent to saying I intend to vote on this later, and then later voting normally (including with a defined-at-the-same-time condition). Just wait until you see the definition of TETRAHEDRON, then you might change your mind. If you're trying to do some sort of combined vote/action like the SELL votes, I expect the vote would be successful (provided the condition is able to be determined one way or another), but the action would not be, for lack of definition. -root
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: RE: RE: Distribution of proposals 5732-5733
tusho wrote: I act on behalf of ais523 to cause ais523 to retract any previous votes on proposal 5733 and vote FORx2 it. On what authority?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: On 1 Oct 2008, at 23:09, Ian Kelly wrote: What exactly is the goal of this? None of these proposals are anything that we might actually consider adopting. Bayes is a Fully Mechanical Automation of Gamular Playing, Striving to Play in As Many Forms As Possible, Regardless of Skill Level, Although With More Attention Given to That Which it Can Be Best At. Funny, I don't get BAYES out of that at all. What alphabet are you using? If I'm not mistaken, BAYES actually stands for BAYES is not an acronym. -root
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Another reason those SELL votes might not have counted
comex wrote: On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't see why not. It seems functionally equivalent to saying I intend to vote on this later, and then later voting normally (including with a defined-at-the-same-time condition). Not if the definition comes after the end of the voting period. Then it would fail per R2127 (paragraph 3).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On 1 Oct 2008, at 23:27, Ian Kelly wrote: On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: On 1 Oct 2008, at 23:09, Ian Kelly wrote: What exactly is the goal of this? None of these proposals are anything that we might actually consider adopting. Bayes is a Fully Mechanical Automation of Gamular Playing, Striving to Play in As Many Forms As Possible, Regardless of Skill Level, Although With More Attention Given to That Which it Can Be Best At. Funny, I don't get BAYES out of that at all. What alphabet are you using? If I'm not mistaken, BAYES actually stands for BAYES is not an acronym. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On 1 Oct 2008, at 23:27, Ian Kelly wrote: On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: On 1 Oct 2008, at 23:09, Ian Kelly wrote: What exactly is the goal of this? None of these proposals are anything that we might actually consider adopting. Bayes is a Fully Mechanical Automation of Gamular Playing, Striving to Play in As Many Forms As Possible, Regardless of Skill Level, Although With More Attention Given to That Which it Can Be Best At. Funny, I don't get BAYES out of that at all. What alphabet are you using? If I'm not mistaken, BAYES actually stands for BAYES is not an acronym. -root BAYES stands for BAYES: Acronym? You Egg! Shenanigans...
DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge
On 1 Oct 2008, at 23:37, Ian Kelly wrote: I agree to the following: This is a public contract. This is a pledge. root CAN amend or terminate this contract at any time by announcement. Any person CAN act on behalf of root to cast on any Agoran decision a vote endorsing the partnership that was known as Bayes at the time this contract was formed. -root Huh. You put a lot of faith into The Algorithm. :-P
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1 Oct 2008, at 23:27, Ian Kelly wrote: If I'm not mistaken, BAYES actually stands for BAYES is not an acronym. BAYES stands for BAYES: Acronym? You Egg! Shenanigans... It's a Calvin and Hobbes-style acronym for thereverendthomasB A Y E S. --Ivan Hope CXXVII
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
Geoffrey Spear wrote: Sometimes gmail's message threading is annoying... That is why I play Agora with Thunderbird instead of GMail's web interface. -- Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) PGP public key available from http://pgp.mit.edu/ PGP Key ID: 0x14B456ED
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1 Oct 2008, at 23:37, Ian Kelly wrote: I agree to the following: This is a public contract. This is a pledge. root CAN amend or terminate this contract at any time by announcement. Any person CAN act on behalf of root to cast on any Agoran decision a vote endorsing the partnership that was known as Bayes at the time this contract was formed. -root Huh. You put a lot of faith into The Algorithm. :-P I can always just retract the votes and cast different ones. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Wednesday 01 October 2008 05:01:41 pm Elliott Hird wrote: On 1 Oct 2008, at 22:35, Ben Caplan wrote: I believe it was decided that the most natural Monsterization of judgment was Monsteredict. Can you write a script to make that kind of analysis? Did I say it'd produce the most natural monsterization all the time? You did imply it would do an acceptable job as Mad Scientist. I don't think that's possible for a computer program.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: take away the monster's deputy badge
On Wednesday 01 October 2008 05:07:01 pm Ed Murphy wrote: Pavitra wrote: On Wednesday 01 October 2008 02:26:17 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote: I submit the following Proposal entitled No More Monster Deputy: In Rule 2193, remove: That's boring. [Makes fast and sudden deputisation a perk rather than a superpower.] Wait. What? Rather than allow the Monster to deputise recklessly (as is currently the case), my proposal restricts the Monster to wait until the officer has violated a deadline, just like normal deputisation. I left out requirements (c) and (d) from 2160 because they didn't seem necessary. I don't want to just take away Monstrous deputisation, because I think it's a cool and interesting power. It just needs to be weakened a little. I think requiring the Monster to wait for a time limit does that. (Note, specifically, that the Monster can't hijack the privileges of any office whose officer is punctual.) If that doesn't answer your question, then please restate it at somewhat greater length than Wait. What?, because I'm not entirely sure I see what you're getting at. Pavitra
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5734-5739
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Bayes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bayes votes as follows: 5736 FOR*2 5737 FOR*2 5738 FOR*2 Note that this is not favoritism. Bayes keeps generating random proposals to submit until it's found one that it will vote for. Therefore, it will only ever vote against its own proposal if an Assessor message is sent in between the proposal's submission and distribution that pushes the spam filter over the edge. -- hopefully minor evil
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5708-5726
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The quoted notice is invalid because it lacks information required by Rule 107. Specifically, the following information was not provided: (c) A clear indication of the options available. CFJ 1800 (and indirectly 1650 and 1722) set the precedent that if this is not explicitly specified, then it's implicit in the nature of the matter to be decided (i.e. whether to adopt a proposal). -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On 02/10/2008, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 01 October 2008 05:01:41 pm Elliott Hird wrote: On 1 Oct 2008, at 22:35, Ben Caplan wrote: I believe it was decided that the most natural Monsterization of judgment was Monsteredict. Can you write a script to make that kind of analysis? Did I say it'd produce the most natural monsterization all the time? You did imply it would do an acceptable job as Mad Scientist. I don't think that's possible for a computer program. I am learning the natural language packages.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5708-5726
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The quoted notice is invalid because it lacks information required by Rule 107. Specifically, the following information was not provided: (c) A clear indication of the options available. CFJ 1800 (and indirectly 1650 and 1722) set the precedent that if this is not explicitly specified, then it's implicit in the nature of the matter to be decided (i.e. whether to adopt a proposal). CFJs 1722 and 1800 dealt with initiating dependent actions at a time when that required initiating an Agoran decision. There are reasons why any person might have cause to initiate a dependent action at any time, and dependent actions had previously been, as they are now, performable without all the overhead of Agoran decisions. Therefore, messages initiating dependent action Agoran decisions should be treated rather leniently. In the case of proposal distributions, especially now that the Promotor is a machine, but even with a human Promotor who can copy and paste from a template, we should be much more stringent. CFJ 1650... well, then, as now, we have the best interests of the game argument, since many proposals have been distributed allegedly improperly. At worst we have a ratified ruleset, and self-ratifying documents purporting to resolve Agoran decisions (although self-ratification has not always existed, and Rules 2034 and 208 might take precedence over Rule 1551, Ratification, and prevent the ratification from being effective), but if some Rules sprang into existence at different times than we thought, that causes more than a little gamestate chaos. But I am curious why Murphy's judgement of CFJ 1650 claims that the Speaker is the vote collector of proposals when memory, RCS, and email all agree that it was the Assessor. -- hopefully minor evil
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5731-5731
Elliott Hird wrote: We heard you the first time with your giant toppost. I apologize for spamming everyone with these notices, but there were five separate proposal distributions that I was dealing with. I quoted the entire notice and put my notice on top (toppost as you say) since my notice applied to the entire quoted notice and I wanted my notice to be prominently visible. I seem to remember a time when proposals were only distributed once a week and actually required game resources (papyri I believe) to distribute. I don't remember Agora generating 200+ emails over the span of a couple days back then... -- Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) PGP public key available from http://pgp.mit.edu/ PGP Key ID: 0x14B456ED
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5731-5731
We heard you the first time with your giant toppost.
On 02/10/2008, Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The quoted notice is invalid because it lacks information required by
Rule 107. Specifically, the following information was not provided:
(c) A clear indication of the options available.
The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
This distribution of proposal 5731 initiates the Agoran
Decisions on whether to adopt it. The eligible voters for ordinary
proposals are the active players, the eligible voters for democratic
proposals are the active first-class players, and the vote collector
is the Assessor.
NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE
5731 D 0 3.0 Goethe Loss of Privileges
chamber: O = Ordinary; D = Democratic
interest: 0-3 = interest index
Proposal ID numbers:
highest orderly: 5731
disorderly: none
Proposal pool: empty
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 5731 (Democratic, AI=3.0, Interest=0) by Goethe
Loss of Privileges
Amend Rule 101 by removing every occurrence of the phrase
or privileges.
Amend Rule 101 by removing the sentence A person's defined privileges
are assumed to exist in the absence of an explicit, binding
agreement to the contrary.
Amend Rule 101 by replacing the paragraph labeled i. with the
following paragraph:
i. Every person has the right, though not necessarily the
ability, to perform actions that are not prohibited or
regulated by the Rules, with the sole exception of
changing the Rules, which is permitted only when the
Rules explicitly or implicitly permit it.
--
Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)
PGP public key available from http://pgp.mit.edu/
PGP Key ID: 0x14B456ED
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5734-5739
comex wrote: For any Agoran decision with an adoption index, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and PRESENT. Yes, yes... I am aware of the options. The issue is that the notice didn't specify them. Besides, are those truly the ONLY options? Isn't there an option to endorse another player? Contracts (Vote Market in particular) appear to have added additional options. Given the controversy regarding the adoption (or lack thereof) of proposal 5707, we may need to be more careful here. -- Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) PGP public key available from http://pgp.mit.edu/ PGP Key ID: 0x14B456ED
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5731-5731
On 02/10/2008, Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Elliott Hird wrote: We heard you the first time with your giant toppost. I apologize for spamming everyone with these notices, but there were five separate proposal distributions that I was dealing with. I quoted the entire notice and put my notice on top (toppost as you say) since my notice applied to the entire quoted notice and I wanted my notice to be prominently visible. I seem to remember a time when proposals were only distributed once a week and actually required game resources (papyri I believe) to distribute. I don't remember Agora generating 200+ emails over the span of a couple days back then... Some distributespam was testing bayes -- Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) PGP public key available from http://pgp.mit.edu/ PGP Key ID: 0x14B456ED
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5731-5731
Elliott Hird wrote: Some distributespam was testing bayes Those proposals are easy enough to deal with. I'm not too worried about them, yet. -- Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) PGP public key available from http://pgp.mit.edu/ PGP Key ID: 0x14B456ED
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5708-5726
Ian Kelly wrote: On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The quoted notice is invalid because it lacks information required by Rule 107. Specifically, the following information was not provided: (c) A clear indication of the options available. CFJ 1800 (and indirectly 1650 and 1722) set the precedent that if this is not explicitly specified, then it's implicit in the nature of the matter to be decided (i.e. whether to adopt a proposal). -root I was not aware of the precedent. I will retract my notice. -- Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) PGP public key available from http://pgp.mit.edu/ PGP Key ID: 0x14B456ED
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5734-5739
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Besides, are those truly the ONLY options? Isn't there an option to endorse another player? Contracts (Vote Market in particular) appear to have added additional options. Given the controversy regarding the adoption (or lack thereof) of proposal 5707, we may need to be more careful here. Yes. The others are conditional votes, which must still resolve to one of those three options. -root
DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Sep 30, 2008, at 7:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: CHAMPION BY: CARDS Goddess Eris, Goethe, Murphy, OscarMeyr, root MANIAC Craig, root PARADOX Goethe, Murphy, root, BobTHJ, ais523, ehird I just realized that root would have qualified for the patent title Groovy (for winning three different ways), if we hadn't repealed it prematurely. Is it worth bringing back? - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Why did I go on hold? I can't vote on a lot of proposals now..
On Oct 1, 2008, at 6:47 AM, Elliott Hird wrote: On 1 Oct 2008, at 04:33, Sgeo wrote: I come off hold. Because you had a cold. Welcome back to the fold. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5708-5726
root wrote: On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:27 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 5719 O 1 1.0 comex Raargh! endorse Bayes x 3 Unfortunately, Bayes wasn't eligible to vote on that proposal. I instead vote (endorse ais523) x 3. Ineffective, need to retract the earlier votes first.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5708-5726
Sir Toby wrote: The quoted notice is invalid because it lacks information required by Rule 107. Specifically, the following information was not provided: (c) A clear indication of the options available. IMO calling it a proposal batch is a reasonably clear indication that the options are those specified by Rule 2196.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5708-5726
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: root wrote: On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:27 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 5719 O 1 1.0 comex Raargh! endorse Bayes x 3 Unfortunately, Bayes wasn't eligible to vote on that proposal. I instead vote (endorse ais523) x 3. Ineffective, need to retract the earlier votes first. The earlier votes were invalid. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5708-5726
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: root wrote: On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: root wrote: On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:27 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 5719 O 1 1.0 comex Raargh! endorse Bayes x 3 Unfortunately, Bayes wasn't eligible to vote on that proposal. I instead vote (endorse ais523) x 3. Ineffective, need to retract the earlier votes first. The earlier votes were invalid. R2127 doesn't stop you from endorsing an ineligible voter, but since it would resolve to no vote, they probably don't affect the validity of the later votes. Right, so the later votes are valid (assuming ais523 actually casts votes to endorse). -root
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora
On Wednesday 01 October 2008 09:18:24 pm Benjamin Schultz wrote: On Sep 30, 2008, at 7:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: CHAMPION BY: CARDS Goddess Eris, Goethe, Murphy, OscarMeyr, root MANIAC Craig, root PARADOX Goethe, Murphy, root, BobTHJ, ais523, ehird I just realized that root would have qualified for the patent title Groovy (for winning three different ways), if we hadn't repealed it prematurely. Is it worth bringing back? Totally, man.
