DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 6109-6115
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote: >> 6109 D 1 3.0 comex Right to vote > PRESENT. It's unclear how this would interact with the Penrose-Banzhaf > or Shapley-Shubik power indices. Heh. Actually calculated these for an Agoran voting distribution a few years ago, when trying to negotiate with Lindrum.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 6109-6115
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: >> 6109 D 1 3.0 comex Right to vote > AGAINST. (1) Gives all partnerships votes. I actually made the proposal without thinking of that.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 6109-6115
Goethe wrote: >> 6115 O 1 1.0 Murphy Get on with it! > 2xFOR (but why is ending the voting period power 1?) R107 (Power 3) prevents ending it less than seven days after it begins.
Re: DIS: RE: Proposal: Clean up the deregistration mess v1.1
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Alexander Smith wrote: > Murphy wrote: >> Amend paragraph 5 of rule 869 to read: >> >> A player CAN deregister by announcement. A person CANNOT >> register within thirty days after deregistering by any means >> that e initiated with the clear intent of being deregistered. > > "I deregister by mistake." > > I wonder how that one would be ruled? GUILTY, I expect. --Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Testing SHOULD
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 11:11 -0600, Benjamin Caplan wrote: > Alex Smith wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 12:02 -0500, Sgeo wrote: > >> I Contest this NoV on the basis that it is unclear whether it is > >> possible to violate a SHOULD. > > > > I initiate a criminal case into the circumstances surrounding this NoV, > > to try to find out whether it is possible to violate a SHOULD. > > NttPF. Also, isn't this better suited to an inquiry case? > Some people don't like the courts to be clogged up with hypotheticals, so when, as here, there's an opportunity to inquire into an actual, you may as well. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Testing SHOULD
Alex Smith wrote: > On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 12:02 -0500, Sgeo wrote: >> I Contest this NoV on the basis that it is unclear whether it is >> possible to violate a SHOULD. > > I initiate a criminal case into the circumstances surrounding this NoV, > to try to find out whether it is possible to violate a SHOULD. NttPF. Also, isn't this better suited to an inquiry case? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
DIS: Re: BUS: Testing SHOULD
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 12:02 -0500, Sgeo wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Alexander Smith wrote:
> > I NoV against Sgeo for violating rule 1750 by failing to read the
> > ruleset during Read the Ruleset week, and also failing to
> > understand or to carefully weigh the consequences of this failure.
> >
> > Arguments: MMI describes SHOULD this way:
> > {{{
> > Before failing to perform
> > the described action, the full implications of failing to
> > perform it should be understood and carefully weighed.
> > }}}
> > Sgeo has admitted (in our IRC discussion forum) that e did not
> > understand and carefully weigh the consequences of failing to read
> > the rules during RTR week before RTR week ended.
> >
>
> I Contest this NoV on the basis that it is unclear whether it is
> possible to violate a SHOULD.
I initiate a criminal case into the circumstances surrounding this NoV,
to try to find out whether it is possible to violate a SHOULD.
--
ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: ...
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 08:42 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I nominate Murphy for rulekeepor. > > This message serves to initiate and resolve the Agoran Decision to > choose the holder of the Rulekeepor office. The eligible voters are > the active players, the vote collector is the IADoP, the valid options > are , and the votes were . I end the voting period. The > option selected by Agora is . Congratulations on your new job, H. Rulekeepor ! (Yes, I know that in this event the job stays with comex.) -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Formality
2009/2/17 Kerim Aydin : > > I pledge that I CAN resolve any CFJ (whether assigned to me or not) by > standing > on my head and saying "QUACK". > > If asked to reconsider, I shall say "MOO". > > We can now repeal the judicial system, and R101(ii) will remain satisfied. > > -Goethe Thanks!
DIS: Re: BUS: PBA
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 12:54 AM, Taral wrote: > I PBA-withdraw as many 2 crops as I can. all 6 for ^279 > I PBA-withdraw as many X crops as I can. 6 for ^237, leaving you with ^12
DIS: Re: BUS: Withdrawals
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > [Disclaimer: Some of the following may fail due to lack of funds.] > I PBA-withdraw a 5 crop. > I PBA-withdraw a 5 crop. > I PBA-withdraw a 5 crop. > I PBA-withdraw a 5 crop. > I PBA-withdraw a 5 crop. > I PBA-withdraw a 5 crop. > I PBA-withdraw a 5 crop. > I PBA-withdraw a 5 crop. > I PBA-withdraw a 5 crop. > I PBA-withdraw a 5 crop. You got 6 of them, and can afford 1 more after the Monday midnight change, which would leave you with 0 coins.
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6070 - 6072
I wrote:
> There are a /lot/ of rules which assume that "is" definitions do not
> necessarily imply immutability, I think. I may go looking for more
> examples sometime. I also feel that assumptions made by the rules are
> quite a good reflection of game custom, even if they do not necessarily
> determine it.
Actually, I even found an explicit mention, rather than just an
implication.
Rule 2154:
{{{
1) The valid options (hereafter the candidates) are the active
players who, during the election,
[snip]
The set of candidates can change after the decision is
initiated.
}}}
Rule 106:
{{{
(c) A clear indication of the options available.
}}}
(Note that (c) is not an "essential parameter" by the strictest
definition, as the rules define anything that is required to initiate
an Agoran Decision but not in rule 106 as an "essential parameter",
presumably for bookkeeping purposes.)
As a separate argument, this paragraph from rule 106:
{{{
An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to
initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent
to initiate the decision. This notice is invalid if it lacks
any of the following information, and the lack is correctly
identified within one week after the notice is published:
}}}
strongly implies to me that essential parameters (plus the other
parameters required by rule 106) are required to /initiate/ the
decision, not for its continuing existence or immutability. In the
case of elections, and in the case of vetos, some of the parameters
have been historically been known to change from time to time, and
nobody has raised an eyebrow up to now.
As arguments as to proposal 6072 specifically, I'd say that the
example in the following paragraph:
{{{
(a) The matter to be decided (for example, "the adoption of
proposal 4781").
}}}
implies that a change in the proposal (if indeed one is possible)
does not change anything in the Agoran Decision about it. My
conclusions are that proposal 6072 has indeed been adopted (or will
be when the Assessor gets round to it), with AI 3. (Incidentally, I
used to think that the AI of a proposal != the AI of a decision, but
comex convinced me otherwise, pointing out that the seventh
paragraph of rule 106 effectively defines the two to be the same
thing.) So I suppose now we can just argue about whether the
proposal deregistered the AFO, or whether it gave comex a power-3
dictatorship...
--
ais523
<>
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6070 - 6072
Goethe wrote: > On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > [Yes, I'm aware of the counterargument that "defaults" *might* mean > > another rule of lower power *might* be able to change it, but an > > equal reading is "defaults" in this context might mean that if it is > > not set at the time of submission, this is what it is, YMMV]. > > Speaking of which, do we have a precedent that "essential parameters" > of a decision, once initiated, can change during the voting process? > (given the first paragraph of r107). I'm aware that this would break > democritization as well if it were not true. I remember discussion but > can't remember if there was a case about it. -G. They definitely can per R101: otherwise, rule 2154 would prevent players deregistering during an election period, which would be ridiculous. (Proposals have an "at the start of the voting period" rider on voter eligibility; elections don't, meaning that deregistering causes a player to cease to be an eligible voter on a currently active election.) There are a /lot/ of rules which assume that "is" definitions do not necessarily imply immutability, I think. I may go looking for more examples sometime. I also feel that assumptions made by the rules are quite a good reflection of game custom, even if they do not necessarily determine it. -- ais523 <>
DIS: RE: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6070 - 6072
Goethe wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> > CoE: Proposal 6072 has an AI of 3.
>
> It occurs to me that this is an unexplored point of failure:
> The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1
> from 1.0 to 9.9. It may be set by the proposer at the time of
> submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0.
> "Otherwise defaults" (e.g is this value unless set at the time of
> submission, and the time a proposal is changed in text is not the time
> of submission) *may* be sufficient to stop R2238 from changing it.
>
> [Yes, I'm aware of the counterargument that "defaults" *might* mean
> another rule of lower power *might* be able to change it, but an
> equal reading is "defaults" in this context might mean that if it is
> not set at the time of submission, this is what it is, YMMV].
Vetos are generally considered to work, and also mess with AI. Also, the
language here, "it may be set..." seems to me to very strongly imply
that AI is a modifiable value, much more so than the interesting
ambiguity regarding modifiability of text. (I thought of the same
counterargument as you instantly, but just like you I'm not sure if it
applies.) Compare the pretty much identical language in rule 2225:
{{{
Each judicial case has an interest index, which CAN be set by
its initiator at the time of initiation, and CAN be changed
by any player without 2 objections, or by the Clerk of the
Courts or Justiciar without 3 objections.
}}}
Does Rule 2225 imply that the II of a judicial case is unmodifiable?
Pretty clearly, it doesn't. I'd say that the similar language in rule
106 likewise doesn't imply that the AI of a proposal is unmodifiable,
or that it's anything but a sort of proposal switch. (I think it's a
rather interesting point as to whether it would be possible for a rule
to remove the AI from an Agoran Decision entirely, by the way; I
suspect that rules 955, 106, and 2196 imply that adoption-index-ness
of an Agoran Decision is an essential unmodifiable part of it, but am
not sure (especially with respect to whether this could be overridden
by a lower-powered rule). However, the mutability of the AI is
relatively clear-cut to me, and I'm almost positive that if the text
of a proposal can be changed by a power-1 rule, its AI can be too.)
--
ais523
<>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6070 - 6072
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote: > [Yes, I'm aware of the counterargument that "defaults" *might* mean > another rule of lower power *might* be able to change it, but an > equal reading is "defaults" in this context might mean that if it is > not set at the time of submission, this is what it is, YMMV]. Speaking of which, do we have a precedent that "essential parameters" of a decision, once initiated, can change during the voting process? (given the first paragraph of r107). I'm aware that this would break democritization as well if it were not true. I remember discussion but can't remember if there was a case about it. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6070 - 6072
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > CoE: Proposal 6072 has an AI of 3. It occurs to me that this is an unexplored point of failure: The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9. It may be set by the proposer at the time of submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0. "Otherwise defaults" (e.g is this value unless set at the time of submission, and the time a proposal is changed in text is not the time of submission) *may* be sufficient to stop R2238 from changing it. [Yes, I'm aware of the counterargument that "defaults" *might* mean another rule of lower power *might* be able to change it, but an equal reading is "defaults" in this context might mean that if it is not set at the time of submission, this is what it is, YMMV]. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Formality
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote: > Kerim Aydin wrote: >> I pledge that I CAN resolve any CFJ (whether assigned to me or not) by >> standing >> on my head and saying "QUACK". >> >> If asked to reconsider, I shall say "MOO". >> >> We can now repeal the judicial system, and R101(ii) will remain satisfied. > > The reason that this doesn't work is that a contract is > insufficiently-powered to redefine Rule-used terms; in this case, > "resolve" and "reconsideration". I am using standard definitions, same as the rules. Neither the rules nor the pledge define the terms specifically. Under r101: "resolve": complete the formal process with a result. Appears in the rules in multiple context; other than r101, none having to do with judgement. "reconsideration": reopen the formal process and produce a potentially new result. Other than r101, forms of "reconsider" do not appear in the ruleset at all. "Consider" appears in the context of judgement, but not specifically defined. -Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: Formality
Kerim Aydin wrote: > I pledge that I CAN resolve any CFJ (whether assigned to me or not) by > standing > on my head and saying "QUACK". > > If asked to reconsider, I shall say "MOO". > > We can now repeal the judicial system, and R101(ii) will remain satisfied. The reason that this doesn't work is that a contract is insufficiently-powered to redefine Rule-used terms; in this case, "resolve" and "reconsideration". If a power-3 Rule declared that you standing on your head and saying "QUACK" was sufficient to resolve a matter of controversy (and similarly for reconsidering MOO), then this would be sufficient to satisfy R101(ii). However, as it isn't, it ain't. That's nomic. oh wait, R754(4). nevermind. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
