Re: DIS: Proto-Contract: Industrial Bank Agora
On 5/2/09 5:23 PM, comex wrote: On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Charles Reiss woggl...@gmail.com wrote: Also, I rather dislike the bias here towards currencies denominated in large units. How about a little less such bias, like: I thought about having it depending on zm but this system is already relatively annoying, as you have to remember what you're already deposited this week or risk messing up your transactions. As the main purpose of the diminishing returns is to prevent scams, legitimate uses should rarely go below 0.80; so it makes little difference, and basing it on zm makes deposits even more of a pain to calculate because you have to keep a running total of your deposits so far. If it makes a big difference to you, I might change it. I didn't think my proposal was much more burdensome, since I expected players to be tracking how much zm they think they got from their deposits anyways so as not to use zm they don't have. (Or, if they aren't, to not really care exactly how much they have until they see the President's report.) A perhaps simpler approach might be to count deposits of some cheap assets (say Rate 40, covering the common crops initially) as some fraction (e.g. a quarter) of a deposit. But this probably doesn't remove burden substantially. Also, shouldn't there be a rate for X crops initially? - woggle signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Instant rests considered harmful
On Sat, 2009-05-02 at 17:20 -0400, comex wrote: On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: It's possible to publish an NoV by sending it to a public forum, no matter what lower-power rules think on the matter. Rules 101 and 478, both power-3, give us the right of participation in the fora. And publishing NoVs is certainly a legitimate form of participation (unlike, e.g. lying). Umm... no? Participation is not the same thing as completely uninhibited participation. N.B. CFJ 1768, but by the same argument, even if excessive NoVs don't count as participation, that merely makes the NoVs ILLEGAL, not INVALID. This is probably the most relevant paragraph of that judgement: The purposes of the public fora, as outlined in the quoted reasoning, are not met by lying. Indeed, lies are destructive to their purposes. Information and ideas are poorly disseminated by untrue statements; true ones are always available for this purpose and much more effective. As for game actions, untrue statements generally do not have such effects. CFJ 1768 judged that rules 101 and 478 do not prevent Truthfulness working, because lying isn't a method of participating in the fora. Submitting an NoV, however, definitely is. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Herald Must Announce a Change in Speaker
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote: As soon as possible after the Speaker changes, the Herald SHALL Suggest identity of the Speaker changes. I hereby announce that the Speaker has changed into blue jeans and a sharp-looking tan polo shirt. CoE: I have not.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Instant rests considered harmful
On Sun, 3 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote: CFJ 1768 judged that rules 101 and 478 do not prevent Truthfulness working, because lying isn't a method of participating in the fora. Submitting an NoV, however, definitely is. Publishing a text of claiming to be an NoV is participating. Whether or not the published text has the legal effect of an NoV is in the domain of the NoV Rules, not R101. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Instant rests considered harmful
On Sun, 2009-05-03 at 07:29 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Sun, 3 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote: CFJ 1768 judged that rules 101 and 478 do not prevent Truthfulness working, because lying isn't a method of participating in the fora. Submitting an NoV, however, definitely is. Publishing a text of claiming to be an NoV is participating. Whether or not the published text has the legal effect of an NoV is in the domain of the NoV Rules, not R101. -Goethe Yes, I'm trying to clarify the legality in that message. The possibility is dependent, as you say, on the NoV rules. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Instant rests considered harmful
Goethe wrote: R101 says you can publish text. It doesn't say anything about what the legal effect of doing so can or can't be. For example, you can publish all the text of a Proposal Distribution, but it's not a Proposal Distribution unless you're the Promotor. Similarly, R101 says you can publish the contents of an NoV, that doesn't mean it is one. Therefore you're R101/R478 argument isn't particularly meaningful. This seems like another facet of ISIDTID. Which, come to think of it, should really be addressed explicitly by Rule 478, e.g. A public message claiming that one performs a game-defined action is not generally effective, but must be specifically enabled, e.g. by a rule stating that one CAN perform it by announcement. A public message claiming to be a game-defined entity (e.g. a distribution of proposals) is not generally that entity, but must match the circumstances defined for that entity (e.g. being sent by the Promotor).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Instant rests considered harmful
On Sun, 3 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote: On Sun, 2009-05-03 at 07:29 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Sun, 3 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote: CFJ 1768 judged that rules 101 and 478 do not prevent Truthfulness working, because lying isn't a method of participating in the fora. Submitting an NoV, however, definitely is. Publishing a text of claiming to be an NoV is participating. Whether or not the published text has the legal effect of an NoV is in the domain of the NoV Rules, not R101. -Goethe Yes, I'm trying to clarify the legality in that message. The possibility is dependent, as you say, on the NoV rules. Gotcha.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Instant rests considered harmful
On Sun, 3 May 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: A public message claiming to be a game-defined entity (e.g. a distribution of proposals) is not generally that entity, but must match the circumstances defined for that entity (e.g. being sent by the Promotor). This would be very nice to have. The question right now is, can we infer this in the current ruleset? Right now there are two types of action: 1. The player is authorized to act via a type of publication. 2. Rules define a certain type of Notice as a publication containing certain information. Player acts by posting said Notice. Notice triggers actions. In spite of my earlier example, Proposal Distribution is actually the first (as are most actions) as the rules say that the Promotor distributes a proposal. Interestingly, I don't know what sort of regulations the second type has at all. R2125 covers actions. If the only action is publishing certain information (and any publication of said information is automatically such a Notice) that's covered by R101; other rules may it ILLEGAL but not IMPOSSIBLE. But if we take the view that what's actually happening is that an Entity (the Notice) is being created[*], then the creation is a regulated act, and Rules may make it IMPOSSIBLE to create the entity. I don't see anything in the rules generally to decide between these two interpretations (other than the usual tradition and good of the game). -Goethe *sometimes the creation is explicit; initiating an Agoran decision is a reasonable synonym for creating a decision process. In those cases it's clearly a regulated creation.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Instant rests considered harmful
On Sun, 2009-05-03 at 08:11 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Sun, 3 May 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: A public message claiming to be a game-defined entity (e.g. a distribution of proposals) is not generally that entity, but must match the circumstances defined for that entity (e.g. being sent by the Promotor). This would be very nice to have. The question right now is, can we infer this in the current ruleset? Right now there are two types of action: 1. The player is authorized to act via a type of publication. 2. Rules define a certain type of Notice as a publication containing certain information. Player acts by posting said Notice. Notice triggers actions. In spite of my earlier example, Proposal Distribution is actually the first (as are most actions) as the rules say that the Promotor distributes a proposal. Interestingly, I don't know what sort of regulations the second type has at all. R2125 covers actions. If the only action is publishing certain information (and any publication of said information is automatically such a Notice) that's covered by R101; other rules may it ILLEGAL but not IMPOSSIBLE. But if we take the view that what's actually happening is that an Entity (the Notice) is being created[*], then the creation is a regulated act, and Rules may make it IMPOSSIBLE to create the entity. I don't see anything in the rules generally to decide between these two interpretations (other than the usual tradition and good of the game). I think, at the same time, we should fix such confusions such as submitting a partnership as a proposal, to make clear whether that sort of thing works or not. IMO, we should divorce game-defined entities from the actual text of messages; instead of publishing an NoV, for instance, we should cause players to announce that they create an NoV with particular information, and then the NoV comes into existence (which is different from the NoV being published in the first place; with such changes, the NoV would not itself be the message). Doing likewise for contracts, proposals, etc, would probably make matters a lot clearer. /me goes off to ponder whether amending a contract causes the original message in which the contract was announced to retroactively change, although e's pretty much positive it doesn't. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Instant rests considered harmful
On Sun, 3 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote: On Sun, 2009-05-03 at 08:11 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: If the only action is publishing certain information (and any publication of said information is automatically such a Notice) that's covered by R101; other rules may it ILLEGAL but not IMPOSSIBLE. But if we take the view that what's actually happening is that an Entity (the Notice) is being created[*], then the creation is a regulated act, and Rules may make it IMPOSSIBLE to create the entity. I don't see anything in the rules generally to decide between these two interpretations (other than the usual tradition and good of the game). I think, at the same time, we should fix such confusions such as submitting a partnership as a proposal, to make clear whether that sort of thing works or not. IMO, we should divorce game-defined entities from the actual text of messages; instead of publishing an NoV, for instance, we should cause players to announce that they create an NoV with particular information, and then the NoV comes into existence... Speaking of proposals, I think the closest thing we have to answering the question for NoVs in the current ruleset is the recent controversy on is a Proposal its text, or a container created by the publication of an initial text? The end result of that (now legislatively clarified) was the latter, so there's a precedent that NoVs and the like are created entities and their creation is regulated. (I think; there was so much text written there I can't remember what was a precedent and what was mere discussion). By the way ais523, what do you think of the other question, on whether MAY with N Support in general invokes dependent actions thus turning a MAY into a CAN? -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Instant rests considered harmful
Goethe wrote: By the way ais523, what do you think of the other question, on whether MAY with N Support in general invokes dependent actions thus turning a MAY into a CAN? Rule 1728 includes this: A dependent action CAN be performed non-dependently as otherwise permitted by the rules. but it's not explicit whether that type of permission is physical, legal, or both.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Instant rests considered harmful
On Sun, 2009-05-03 at 11:01 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: Goethe wrote: By the way ais523, what do you think of the other question, on whether MAY with N Support in general invokes dependent actions thus turning a MAY into a CAN? Rule 1728 includes this: A dependent action CAN be performed non-dependently as otherwise permitted by the rules. but it's not explicit whether that type of permission is physical, legal, or both. CAN is always physical; but as otherwise permitted by the rules makes the whole thing even more muddy. As for Goethe's original question, I'm not answering right now because I'm not sure, I'll have to look into the issue more closely. I strongly suspect there's at least one bug in the rule, but am not entirely sure of its effects right now. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Interesting question
On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
I CFJ {A Rule and its text can have different power.}
Please give arguments.
--
Taral tar...@gmail.com
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Interesting question
ais523 wrote: Well, one potentially worrying problem here; if a rule's text has a lower power than the rule itself (say 0), then the text cannot affect any aspect of the rule's operation. So how on earth does the rule know what it's enforcing? Arguably, the text is part of the rule, thus must have the same Power. (For instance, the first half of a passed proposal has the same Power as the proposal itself.) Gratuitous: The text can be duplicated in different context (e.g. as the text of a proposal or contract), but then arguably it isn't its [the rule's] text any more.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Instant rests considered harmful
On Sun, 3 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote: On Sun, 2009-05-03 at 11:01 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: Goethe wrote: By the way ais523, what do you think of the other question, on whether MAY with N Support in general invokes dependent actions thus turning a MAY into a CAN? Rule 1728 includes this: A dependent action CAN be performed non-dependently as otherwise permitted by the rules. but it's not explicit whether that type of permission is physical, legal, or both. CAN is always physical; but as otherwise permitted by the rules makes the whole thing even more muddy. Ugh. So we have to interpret both permitted and authorized either of which can be synonyms for CAN, MAY, or both. Both terms are scattered around the ruleset a lot, so it might be that no hard ruling can be made, but that it's contextual, like the noncapitalized can, may, etc. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Cookie Jar] guesses
Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: For next week, I guess 14 proposals and 11 judicial cases. I guess 29 proposals at 21 judicial cases.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Notary] Who Promised What
Alex Smith wrote: (2009-05-01 Quazie) Page to be included 2009-05-01-quazie can not be found! Parties * Quazie Text I pledge to vote FOR any attempt to allow musicianship to be won by more than one player a year IF another player spends eir notes to expunge my current rests. Notes The condition has been satisfied. Does that discharge and destroy the pledge? I don't think so, but I'm not sure. Semi-formally worded pledges weird me out because I can't tell what's binding text, what's framing context, and what's binding subtext. Three-Scroll Rodney Page to be included three-scroll can not be found! Parties * coppro * Quazie * Tiger * comex * BobTHJ Text 1. The Contract The name of this public contract is 3-Scroll Rodney. Any player CAN join or leave this contract by announcement. Any party CAN amend this contract without member objection. When this contract directs to award points, the Dungeon Master SHALL do so at the next available opportunity; this responsibility is incumbent on the position, not the player holding it. The Dungeon Master CAN add an axis to this contract by announcement. Unless otherwise specified, all duties in this contract SHALL be performed in a timely manner. 2. The Dungeon Master The Dungeon Master is the paryty responsible for the maintenance of this contract. A player CAN, with 1 Party Consent, change the Dungeon Master. If this contract is a contest, any party CAN and SHALL, by announcement, flip the contestmaster of this contest to the Dungeon Master. The Dungeon Master is the recordkeepor for any and all assets for which this contract is the backing document. A Poor Sob is a party of this contract other than the Dungeon Master. When this document becomes a contract, coppro becomes the Dungeon Master, and this contract is amended so that this statement is removed. 3. Contest Periods There is always an ongoing Contest Period. Ending a Contest Period starts a new one. A Contest Period CANNOT be ended except as specified in this contract. The Dungeon Master CAN, with 2 Party Consent, end the current Contest Period. The current Contest Period is ended when any of the following occur: - A player satisfies the Winning Condition of Championship - A player satisfies the Winning Condition of High Score while Agora is in overtime. - The Dungeon Master is changed. - The list of available varieties of Scrolls is changed. 4. Scrolls Scrolls are type of asset; they come in a number of varieties, each of which is a class of assets and a currency. Ownership of Scrolls is restricted to Poor Sobs. The Dungeon Master shall only create Scrolls as e is required to do. All Scrolls are destroyed at the end of each Contest Period. A single question mark, when used unambiguously, is synonymous with Scroll. Scrolls come in a number of varieties as defined elsewhere in this contract. At the beginning of a Contest Period, the Dungeon Master SHALL assign a Label to each variety, and e SHALL NOT reveal which variety has been assigned which Label except as required by this contract. The avaiable Labels are defined elsewhere in this contract. 5. Labels The available Labels are as follows. Any party CAN, with 2 party support, amend this list of Labels, provided that this does not cause this list to contain less Labels than there are varieties of Scroll: - EMAG EHT NIW UOY - NOMIC NOMIC NOMIC - BIRTHDAY PARTY - STAND TURN DANCE - MAUD - FISH KEYBOARD - QUANTUM WALRUS - VACATION IN CANADA - STRAWBERRY FIELD - A B NSCROLL - LROAEM DLANB - JUDGEMENT IS COME - YOYO TWO A Label remains assigned to a variety of Scroll for the duration of the Contest Period in which it was assigned even if it is subsequently removed from this list. If this is the case, the Dungeon Master will publish in eir report which labels exist but are not defined in this section. 6. Reading Scrolls A Poor Sob (the reader) CAN, by announcement, read a Scroll e owns. E destroys the Scroll by reading it. Reading a Scroll produces an effect, depending on its variety. At the conclusion of the Agoran Week in which a Scroll was read, the Dungeon Master SHALL perform the actions specified by the varieties of scrolls read. E SHALL perform them in such a way that the reader knows what effects were triggered by any given Poor Sob, but not which particular Scroll caused any given effect in a given week. If e is directed to perform an action privately, e SHALL NOT reveal that it was performed publicly, otherwise e SHALL perform it publicly. If e performs multiple weeks' worth of actions at once due to lateness, e SHALL ensure that each week's actions are distinct and perform each week's actions sequentially. 7. Wave-Particle Duality Each variety of scroll has a Frequency. The total Frequencies of all varieties of scroll must equal exactly 1. When the Dungeon
DIS: Re: BUS: New player registration
Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Ben Daniel b...@bendaniel.us wrote: I, a biological organism generally recognized by and commonly referred to�by the name of Ben Daniel,�wish to register as a new player. I missed this the first time around. Does anyone else think this sounds suspiciously similar to Phil Lister's registration? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
DIS: Re: BUS: [DM] (i)nventory
On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: I revoke 3 x-points from comex. I revoke 2 x-points from Quazie. FISH KEYBOARD = hallucination. I revoke 3 y-points from comex. I revoke 2 y-points from Tiger. EMAG EHT NIW UOY = concentration. I award 1 y-point to Tiger. I act on Tiger's behalf to destroy two of eir Scrolls labeled LROAEM DLANB. Total x-points awarded: 10 Total y-points awarded: 21 Total x-points revoked: 5 Total y-points revoked: 5 =SCROLL AWARDS== I award comex a ? labeled FISH KEYBOARD. I award comex a ? labeled LROAEM DLANB. I award Pavitra 4 ?s labeled BIRTHDAY PARTY. I award Pavitra a ? labeled FISH KEYBOARD. I award Pavitra a ? labeled STAND TURN DANCE. I award Pavitra a ? labeled NOMIC NOMIC NOMIC. I award Quazie a ? labeled YOYO TWO. I award Quazie a ? labeled FISH KEYBOARD. I award Tiger a ? labeled NOMIC NOMIC NOMIC. I award Tiger a ? labeled VACATION IN CANADA. ===INVENTORY comex: a - 1 Scroll labeled FISH KEYBOARD b - 1 Scroll labeled LROAEM DLANB Pavitra: a - 4 Scrolls labeled BIRTHDAY PARTY b - 1 Scroll labeled FISH KEYBOARD c - 1 Scroll labeled STAND TURN DANCE d - 1 Scroll labeled NOMIC NOMIC NOMIC Quazie: a - 2 Scrolls labeled FISH KEYBOARD b - 1 Scroll labeled YOYO TWO Tiger: a - 1 Scroll labeled NOMIC NOMIC NOMIC b - 1 Scroll labeled VACATION IN CANADA SCROLLS= Scroll Effect -- -- Championship Win Agora Exile Forced out of this contest for a week Punishment 2 Rests Identification Determine another Scroll's identity Polymorph Change some Scrolls into others. Reality 1d5 x-points Imagination 1d5 y-points Existentialism 3d5 x-points Superstition 3d5 y-points Hallucination -1d5 x-points Concentration -1d5 y-points Item Destruction Lose some Scrolls. -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Machine readability
Pavitra wrote: I transfer a prop from coppro to the PNP for breaking various automated tools that used to parse proposal distributions. How many such tools are there? Revising the admin interface for the Assessor DB wasn't too much trouble.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Machine readability
Ed Murphy wrote: Pavitra wrote: I transfer a prop from coppro to the PNP for breaking various automated tools that used to parse proposal distributions. How many such tools are there? Revising the admin interface for the Assessor DB wasn't too much trouble. At least one: the one that enables the PNP to exercise its (not inconsiderable) caste. Anyway, if you think I'm being unfair, you could always transfer a prop from me to coppro. Props are self-balancing that way. Pavitra signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
DIS: Re: BUS: [Enigma] The game goes on
Submission for Scamster-for-a-day: Change the power of Rule 2228 below 1.7 thus not allowing it to secure Rests at power 1.7. This would cause rests to be unsecured allowing one to create and destroy rests at will. -- Dvorak Herring
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New player registration
Bendaniel.us That's like me registering phillister.com On 2009-05-04, Benjamin Caplan celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote: Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Ben Daniel b...@bendaniel.us wrote: I, a biological organism generally recognized by and commonly referred to�by the name of Ben Daniel,�wish to register as a new player. I missed this the first time around. Does anyone else think this sounds suspiciously similar to Phil Lister's registration?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Enigma] The game goes on
On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Dvorak Herring dvorak.herr...@gmail.comwrote: Submission for Scamster-for-a-day: Change the power of Rule 2228 below 1.7 thus not allowing it to secure Rests at power 1.7. This would cause rests to be unsecured allowing one to create and destroy rests at will. -- Dvorak Herring Er...um...why here? -- --Rodlen
DIS: Re: BUS: Machine readability
coppro wrote: Benjamin Caplan wrote: I transfer a prop from coppro to the PNP for breaking various automated tools that used to parse proposal distributions. Pavitra I transfer a prop from the PNP to myself. There's no reason the PNP can't update eir scripts to read from my new format; it's not that different, as Murphy says. Ineffective, you can't transfer props to yourself.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Enigma] The game goes on
On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Dvorak Herring dvorak.herr...@gmail.com wrote: Submission for Scamster-for-a-day: Change the power of Rule 2228 below 1.7 thus not allowing it to secure Rests at power 1.7. This would cause rests to be unsecured allowing one to create and destroy rests at will. Unsecured doesn't mean arbitrarily changeable at will. It would just mean there would be no minimum power requirement for a mechanism for changing it. -root
