Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More contract scams
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> Warrigal wrote:
>> For the next second, I continuously CFJ on this statement.
>>
>> Do you think I just called an uncountably infinite number of CFJs?
>
> No, I think you only called one, or possibly zero. There's a precedent
> somewhere about the use of "I do X N times" where N > a lot.
Ill-specified sets ("an infinite number", "continuously") are Right Out.
(CFJ 1584 upheld in CFJ 1728).
For large finite numbers, see CFJ 1774 (also talks a lot about defining
when the ISID "fallacy" might or might not work).
Also, "continuously" also implies that some of the effect is expected to
occur in the future of the message; this is against R478 (last paragraph).
-G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: no objections
Craig Daniel wrote: > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Benjamin > Caplan wrote: >> >> The intent was for the same action (null string) both times. The >> ambiguity shouldn't invalidate the action any more than the ambiguity of >> attempting to transfer an unspecified one of several mutually-fungible >> assets. >> > > But iff he quotes the other one he can do nothing again. Which is true regardless of which one e resolved first and which is "the other one". The ambiguity has no actual consequences.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: no objections
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Benjamin Caplan wrote: > > The intent was for the same action (null string) both times. The > ambiguity shouldn't invalidate the action any more than the ambiguity of > attempting to transfer an unspecified one of several mutually-fungible > assets. > But iff he quotes the other one he can do nothing again.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: no objections
Craig Daniel wrote: > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Benjamin > Caplan wrote: >> Elliott Hird wrote: >>> 2009/6/18 C-walker : On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 2:21 PM, C-walker wrote: > -- > C-walker, who intends, without objection > Having received no objections, I do so. -- C-walker >>> >>> It was not to the public forum. >> >> I found at least two public messages on that date with that signature. > > In which case his actual doing of the action is ambiguous, isn't it? The intent was for the same action (null string) both times. The ambiguity shouldn't invalidate the action any more than the ambiguity of attempting to transfer an unspecified one of several mutually-fungible assets.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: no objections
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Benjamin Caplan wrote: > Elliott Hird wrote: >> 2009/6/18 C-walker : >>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 2:21 PM, >>> C-walker wrote: -- C-walker, who intends, without objection >>> >>> Having received no objections, I do so. >>> >>> -- >>> C-walker >>> >> >> It was not to the public forum. > > I found at least two public messages on that date with that signature. In which case his actual doing of the action is ambiguous, isn't it?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contests: CO Set
Kyle Marek-Spartz wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: >> No. There were two wins. As a result, each player will lose 80% then 80% >> again, for a total of 98% loss. Declaring a skunk just because a scam >> would bring that to 99.8% is kind of dumb. > > 100 * .2 = 20 (First reset -> total loss of 80%) > 20 * .2 = 4 (Second reset -> total loss of 96%) > 4 * .2 = .8 (Third reset -> total loss of 99.2%) > .8 * .2 = .16 (Fourth reset -> total loss of 99.84%) Fine, my math sucks. Close enough.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contests: CO Set
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > No. There were two wins. As a result, each player will lose 80% then 80% > again, for a total of 98% loss. Declaring a skunk just because a scam > would bring that to 99.8% is kind of dumb. 100 * .2 = 20 (First reset -> total loss of 80%) 20 * .2 = 4 (Second reset -> total loss of 96%) 4 * .2 = .8 (Third reset -> total loss of 99.2%) .8 * .2 = .16 (Fourth reset -> total loss of 99.84%)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More contract scams
Benjamin Caplan wrote: > Sean Hunt wrote: >> For the duration of this message, I continually deregister Tiger Jr. > > Probably you want "continuously". Pretty much the same thing.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More contract scams
Warrigal wrote: > For the next second, I continuously CFJ on this statement. > > Do you think I just called an uncountably infinite number of CFJs? No, I think you only called one, or possibly zero. There's a precedent somewhere about the use of "I do X N times" where N > a lot.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Fix switches
Ed Murphy wrote: > I spend Ab to make this proposal distributable. > > Proposal: Fix switches > (AI = 2, please) > > Amend Rule 869 (How to Join and Leave Agora) by inserting this text > immediately after the paragraph beginning "A second-class person CAN": > > A non-person CANNOT be registered (or created in a Registered > state), rules to the contrary notwithstanding. > > Amend Rule 2136 (Contests) by replacing this text: > > it CANNOT be flipped in any other way, > > with this text: > > it CANNOT be flipped (or initialized to a non-'none' value) in > any other way, > There should be a more general fix than this, preferably in the Switches rule. Something like "A newly-created switch is always initialized with its default value, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. If a switch would otherwise be created with a non-default value, it is instead flipped to that value (to the extent authorized by the rule claiming to initialize it with a non-default value) immediately after its creation."
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Points Relay Service II
Sean Hunt wrote:
> Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>> Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> Benjamin Caplan wrote:
I agree to the {}-delimited contract below.
With the majority consent of the set of myself, I cause the LPRS to
intend with Agoran Consent to register.
>>> Fails, the LPRS is not a contract.
>>
>> I'm not sure I agree. Reading R1728(b), it's not clear to me whether the
>> initiator necessarily must have been a person at the time of intent, or
>> if it's sufficient for the em to be a person when the decision is resolved.
>>
>> I'll have it re-intend once it's a person, to reduce ambiguity.
> Once it's a contract, I see no issue, but until it's a contract I don't
> think it qualifies as an entity you can act on behalf of, because it
> doesn't grant that power until it becomes a contract.
Act-on-behalf isn't legislated at all. (Unless it is again now? I don't
think it is.) Anyway, I see no reason an entity can't grant powers to
act on its behalf. If it were purporting to let me act on some third
party's behalf, particularly if the third party were a person, then I
would be more inclined to agree.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2547 assigned to Pavitra
comex wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Benjamin > Caplan wrote: >> The subject line is not necessary to determine that this creates a pledge. >> >> >> A message that purports to grant act-on-behalf powers without joining a >> multi-party agreement can only be doing so via pledge; and furthermore, >> the body of this message refers to the attempt as a pledge. The message >> cannot be reasonably interpreted as other than attempting to create a >> pledge. > > I intend to appeal this with two support. An informal agreement would > suffice; see CFJ 2397. Reasonable enough in itself; but a non-pledge informal agreement would not refer to itself as a pledge in the agreement text.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Points Relay Service II
Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>>> I agree to the {}-delimited contract below.
>>>
>>> With the majority consent of the set of myself, I cause the LPRS to
>>> intend with Agoran Consent to register.
>> Fails, the LPRS is not a contract.
>
> I'm not sure I agree. Reading R1728(b), it's not clear to me whether the
> initiator necessarily must have been a person at the time of intent, or
> if it's sufficient for the em to be a person when the decision is resolved.
>
> I'll have it re-intend once it's a person, to reduce ambiguity.
Once it's a contract, I see no issue, but until it's a contract I don't
think it qualifies as an entity you can act on behalf of, because it
doesn't grant that power until it becomes a contract.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: no objections
Elliott Hird wrote: > 2009/6/18 C-walker : >> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 2:21 PM, >> C-walker wrote: >>> -- >>> C-walker, who intends, without objection >>> >> >> Having received no objections, I do so. >> >> -- >> C-walker >> > > It was not to the public forum. I found at least two public messages on that date with that signature.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Points Relay Service II
Sean Hunt wrote:
> Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>> I agree to the {}-delimited contract below.
>>
>> With the majority consent of the set of myself, I cause the LPRS to
>> intend with Agoran Consent to register.
>
> Fails, the LPRS is not a contract.
I'm not sure I agree. Reading R1728(b), it's not clear to me whether the
initiator necessarily must have been a person at the time of intent, or
if it's sufficient for the em to be a person when the decision is resolved.
I'll have it re-intend once it's a person, to reduce ambiguity.
DIS: Re: BUS: More contract scams
Sean Hunt wrote: > For the duration of this message, I continually deregister Tiger Jr. Probably you want "continuously".
DIS: Re: BUS: no objections
2009/6/18 C-walker : > On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 2:21 PM, > C-walker wrote: >> -- >> C-walker, who intends, without objection >> > > Having received no objections, I do so. > > -- > C-walker > It was not to the public forum.
Re: DIS: RE: Ambiguity Reduction
Alexander Smith wrote: > coppro wrote: >> I act on behalf of myndzi to go on hold. > > How? > A private contract that's as valid as the one that made em the player. You're the Notary, you have a copy.
DIS: RE: Ambiguity Reduction
coppro wrote: > I act on behalf of myndzi to go on hold. How? -- ais523 <>
RE: Re: DIS: Fix protoes
coppro wrote: > week, distribute a any proposal that is in the Pool but was Fix the typo at the same time? (It's in the current rule, but as you're changing that section anyway...) -- ais523 <>
DIS: Fix protoes
I submit the following proposal, AI=2, entitled Fix Contract Switches
{{{
In rule 2198 (Making Contract Changes), remove the sentence beginning
with "If a contract states that one or more of its switches...".
In rule 2178 (Contract Switches), append the following paragraph:
{{
Subject to the other requirements in this rule, if a contract
specifies that its Disclosure and/or Sentiment have given values,
then they do, and the specified switches CANNOT be flipped away
from those value(s), rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
}}
}}}
Any errors or suchlike?
Once that is through, we can ratify or similar:
{{
No contracts became (including simply being) registered as a direct
result of Rule 2198.
}}
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More contract scams
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 5:20 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > Other fun switches that such a contract can set arbitrarily is Caste > and Pustore (including to standing). I wonder how that would work out > - the contract saying that it is standing, and the CotC then making it > sitting. Would it bacome standing immediately afterwards, or would the > flip to sitting fail? Bah. We were planning to have all sorts of fun with this and you ruined it. :( -- -c.
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: More contract scams
comext wrote:
> I deregister each of the following contracts:
> > { This is a public contract and a pledge called Caste8a. This
> > contract's citizenship is registered and its caste is Alpha. C-walker
> > CAN act on behalf of this contract to vote in Agoran Decisions. }
And now we get back to the "flip a switch which is platonically set to a
certain value" problem. It came up in the aftermath of 5707, but the
eventual judgement for the case didn't resolve the problem we had here.
--
ais523
<>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Safety Nets
Nttpf.
On 2009-06-18, C-walker wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 3:23 AM, Elliott
> Hird wrote:
>> Leaves ambiguity.
>>
>> On 2009-06-18, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> The following are the Myndzi Playerhood Safety Nets, one with myndzi
>>> being a player, one with em not being a player.
>>>
>>> {myndzi is a player.}
>>> {myndzi is not a player.}
>>>
>>> Either document may be ratified at a later date, this allows any
>>> ambiguity that arises to be dealt with retroactively.
>
> {myndzi has registered.}
> {myndzi has not registered.}
>
> --
> C-walker
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Safety Nets
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 3:23 AM, Elliott
Hird wrote:
> Leaves ambiguity.
>
> On 2009-06-18, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> The following are the Myndzi Playerhood Safety Nets, one with myndzi
>> being a player, one with em not being a player.
>>
>> {myndzi is a player.}
>> {myndzi is not a player.}
>>
>> Either document may be ratified at a later date, this allows any
>> ambiguity that arises to be dealt with retroactively.
{myndzi has registered.}
{myndzi has not registered.}
--
C-walker
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement, CFJ 2585
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Benjamin Caplan wrote: > the penultimate AL in the former That was a typo :/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More contract scams
2009/6/18 Kerim Aydin > > On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > > Citizenship is an entity switch with values Unregistered > > (default) and Registered, tracked by the registrar. > > > If a contract states that one or more of its switches have > > certain values, then they do. > > Bravo! As neat a little unintended but clear-cut consequence (at least > at first glance) as I've seen in a while. -G. > Other fun switches that such a contract can set arbitrarily is Caste and Pustore (including to standing). I wonder how that would work out - the contract saying that it is standing, and the CotC then making it sitting. Would it bacome standing immediately afterwards, or would the flip to sitting fail? -- -Tiger
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More contract scams
2009/6/18 Kerim Aydin > > On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > > Citizenship is an entity switch with values Unregistered > > (default) and Registered, tracked by the registrar. > > > If a contract states that one or more of its switches have > > certain values, then they do. > > Bravo! As neat a little unintended but clear-cut consequence (at least > at first glance) as I've seen in a while. -G. > The obvious fix for this particular bug is to amend that to read "If a contract states that one or more of its contract switches have...", but that doesn't really deal with the contestmaster problem. -- -Tiger
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More contract scams
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > Citizenship is an entity switch with values Unregistered > (default) and Registered, tracked by the registrar. > If a contract states that one or more of its switches have > certain values, then they do. Bravo! As neat a little unintended but clear-cut consequence (at least at first glance) as I've seen in a while. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: More contract scams
2009/6/18 Jonatan Kilhamn > [submitted as evidence] > Rule 2178 (Power=2) > Contract Switches > > Disclosure is a contract switch, tracked by the Notary, with > values Private (default) and Public. Rules to the contrary > notwithstanding: > > a) A contract's Disclosure CANNOT be flipped to Public unless > its text and list of parties are simultaneously published. > > b) A contract's Disclosure CANNOT be flipped away from Public. > > c) Changes to a public contract's text and/or list of parties > do not become effective until published. > > Sentiment is a contract switch, tracked by the Notary, with > values Equitable (default) and Legalistic. Rules to the > contrary notwithstanding, a contract's Sentiment CANNOT be > flipped away from Legalistic. > > Sorry, I got the wrong rule. Evidence for this case: Rule 2198/5 (Power=2) Making Contract Changes Contract Changes CAN be performed as follows: a) By agreement between all parties, if the contract's minimum number of parties is at least two. b) By a party without objection (any other party CAN object), if the contract's minimum number of parties is less than two. c) Using a mechanism specified by the contract. d) By the contract by announcement, if it is a person. If a contract does not purport to regulate becoming a party to it, then any person CAN become a party to it by announcement. If a contract states that one or more of its switches have certain values, then they do. The rest of this rule notwithstanding, if the nature and/or permissibility of a Contract Changes is ambiguous, then it has no effect. Contract changes are secured. H. CotC, please do not include R2178 as evidence in this case; it is irrelevant. -- -Tiger
