DIS: Re: BUS: Self-ratification bug
Bucky wrote: It appears that omd's judgment on CfJ 2878 has self-ratified. Rule 2201 (Self-ratification) does not consider an appeal to be a challenge to a judicial declaration. (The CfJ itself is 'suspended', but that isn't relevent) Also, note that the definition of tortoise doesn't require the judgment on the inquiry case to be UNDECIDABLE, it just requires the statement itself to be UNDECIDABLE. Furthermore, judicial declarations are effective as of the moment the CfJ was created; therefore, CfJ 2878 has been a tortoise for roughly 20 days. Therefore I explicitly make the following announcement: This is a Win Announcement. CfJ 2878 has continuously been a tortoise for no greater than four and no less than two weeks. This announcement's last sentence is not factually correct. A more detailed analysis: * omd's judgement of CFJ 2878 is not a judicial declaration, so it doesn't self-ratify. * Rule 2110 says question of veracity is UNDECIDABLE, not question of veracity is judged UNDECIDABLE. Interpreting this literally, if CFJ 2878 is a tortoise, then it was one since it was initiated, regardless of omd's judgement or any appeal of said judgement. * Rule 2186 allows any person (not just a player) to win, but the win announcement is ineffective because it includes another self-contradiction and is thus not factually correct.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6863-6869
On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 01:18:28 -0700, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: 6863 O 1 2.0 coppro Be Exact AGAINST, announcing the amount should be SHALL 6864 O 1 3.0 coppro Urgency simplified already failed quorum (the down side of urgent proposals is that they can fail quorum faster) This proposal was urgent? I don't remember that. Did you maybe just think that because the name includes 'urgency'? Sean
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6863 - 6869
On Sun, 2010-11-07 at 13:15 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote: I'm a bit behind on recordkeeping because of the devnull nethack tournament, but I'll try to get all of my reports published by the time they're due later today. We should totally contestify that, especially as at least two Agorans are involved already. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Fearmongor] changes of the week
On Sun, 2010-11-07 at 13:29 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:12 AM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:09 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: AI=Mutable Hmm... I'm treating that as submitting an AI-1 proposal, as I don't believe one CAN set a proposal's AI to an impossible value. Surely the common-sense interpretation is that e reserves the right to change the AI later, e.g. via veto? -- ais523
DIS: Re: OFF: Re: [IADoP] Fearmonger Election
On Sun, 2010-11-07 at 13:42 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: This message serves to initiate the Agoran Decision to choose the holder of the Fearmonger office. The vote collector is the IADoP and the eligible voters are the active players. Each voter has a voting limit of one. The valid options are G. and coppro. The voting period for the Fearmonger election is doubled as it's failing quorum. People who didn't vote yet, including myself, should feel humiliated. I vote PRESENT. At this point I'm tempted to vote with an insanely complex conditional. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Fearmongor] changes of the week
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 1:34 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Surely the common-sense interpretation is that e reserves the right to change the AI later, e.g. via veto? I wouldn't say so; A=Y is only equivalent to A is Y in very awkward speech, and game custom suggests e was attempting to use Mutable as an index.
DIS: Re: BUS: As per ais523's interpretation
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 2:39 PM, John Smith spamba...@yahoo.com wrote: This is a Win Announcement. CfJ 2878 has continuously been a tortoise for no greater than four and no less than two weeks. I claim that this is not a win announcement, because CFJ 2878 is not on the legality of an action: it is, effectively, on ($action is illegal) ^ (if Rule 2215 did not exist, action would not be illegal), which is a substantively different statement. Also, you're going to Win by Proposal shortly anyway.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6870-6876
On 10-10-31 01:34 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: This distribution of proposals 6870-6876 initiates the Agoran Decisions on whether to adopt them. The eligible voters are the active players at the time of this distribution, and the vote collector is the Assessor. The valid options on each decision are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote). Each proposal is hereby assigned the corresponding ID number listed with it. NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE 6870 O 1 3.0 omd nai cleanup Conditional: FOR if an only if Bucky has not won the game, AGAINST otherwise. 6871 O 0 3.0 G. The gods have spoken AGAINST 6872 O 0 2.0 G. And eir name is PRESENT 6873 O 0 1.0 G. Auctions FOR 6874 O 1 1.0 omd These are getting really old Conditional: ENDORSE ehird iff ehird has cast a non-PRESENT vote after resolving conditionals, ENDORSE G. otherwise. 6875 O 1 2.0 omd Let's have inactive officeholders FOR 6876 O 1 1.9 G. Condensation FOR -coppro
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2891 assigned to coppro
On 10-11-07 10:00 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2891 == Criminal Case 2891 (Interest Index = 0) === Warrigal violated committed the Class-2 Crime of Restricted Behavior by violating rule 2125, because rule 1006 states that an officer may be referred to by the name of that office, and Warrigal violated the rules by being referred to by the name of Herald whilst not holding that office. HILARIOUS. Oh wait, that's not actually a judgment... NOT GUILTY per Wooble. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6863-6869
On 10-11-07 09:39 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: Ugh, you're right. I transfer a prop from myself (for getting 6864 and 6865 mixed up) to coppro (for pointing it out). 6864 still failed quorum (and would have failed even if I had voted FOR it, actually I probably would have voted PRESENT). CoE on my previous results message for 6863-69, admitted: my votes on 6865 were ineffective. I hereby resolve the decision on 6865 as follows: ais523 voted 5F G. voted 7F Tiger voted 2F Wooble voted 5F outcome is FAILED QUORUM I submit a proposal identical to Proposal 6864 in every attribute I can control, and then pay a fee to make it Distributable. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6863-6869
NttPF On Sunday, November 7, 2010, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: On 10-11-07 09:39 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: Ugh, you're right. I transfer a prop from myself (for getting 6864 and 6865 mixed up) to coppro (for pointing it out). 6864 still failed quorum (and would have failed even if I had voted FOR it, actually I probably would have voted PRESENT). CoE on my previous results message for 6863-69, admitted: my votes on 6865 were ineffective. I hereby resolve the decision on 6865 as follows: ais523 voted 5F G. voted 7F Tiger voted 2F Wooble voted 5F outcome is FAILED QUORUM I submit a proposal identical to Proposal 6864 in every attribute I can control, and then pay a fee to make it Distributable. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6870-6876
NttPF On Sunday, November 7, 2010, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: On 10-10-31 01:34 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: This distribution of proposals 6870-6876 initiates the Agoran Decisions on whether to adopt them. The eligible voters are the active players at the time of this distribution, and the vote collector is the Assessor. The valid options on each decision are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote). Each proposal is hereby assigned the corresponding ID number listed with it. NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE 6870 O 1 3.0 omd nai cleanup Conditional: FOR if an only if Bucky has not won the game, AGAINST otherwise. 6871 O 0 3.0 G. The gods have spoken AGAINST 6872 O 0 2.0 G. And eir name is PRESENT 6873 O 0 1.0 G. Auctions FOR 6874 O 1 1.0 omd These are getting really old Conditional: ENDORSE ehird iff ehird has cast a non-PRESENT vote after resolving conditionals, ENDORSE G. otherwise. 6875 O 1 2.0 omd Let's have inactive officeholders FOR 6876 O 1 1.9 G. Condensation FOR -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Non-coup
Wooble wrote: On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 3:25 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: I believe omd's announcement of shelling the palace had no effect, as e was no longer Crown Prince at the time due to my becoming Speaker a few days earlier. omd then moved the player above em (Yally) down one position, thus becoming Crown Prince again. As I pointed out in a reply to another message, crowning doesn't move anyone down the List. Ugh, then I probably miscomputed some voting results. Will come back later and CoE/fix whatever actually needs it in practice.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6870-6876
coppro wrote: On 10-10-31 01:34 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: This distribution of proposals 6870-6876 initiates the Agoran Decisions on whether to adopt them. The eligible voters are the active players at the time of this distribution, and the vote collector is the Assessor. The valid options on each decision are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote). Each proposal is hereby assigned the corresponding ID number listed with it. NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE 6870 O 1 3.0 omd nai cleanup Conditional: FOR if an only if Bucky has not won the game, AGAINST otherwise. You still have a voting limit of zero due to Rests, so these would have been ineffective even if they hadn't been NttPF.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2891 assigned to coppro
coppro wrote: On 10-11-07 10:00 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2891 == Criminal Case 2891 (Interest Index = 0) === Warrigal violated committed the Class-2 Crime of Restricted Behavior by violating rule 2125, because rule 1006 states that an officer may be referred to by the name of that office, and Warrigal violated the rules by being referred to by the name of Herald whilst not holding that office. HILARIOUS. Oh wait, that's not actually a judgment... NOT GUILTY per Wooble. NttPF
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6870-6876
On 10-11-07 05:23 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: You still have a voting limit of zero due to Rests, so these would have been ineffective even if they hadn't been NttPF. These were cleared when the Rebellion wiped them. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6870-6876
On Sunday, November 7, 2010, comex wrote: NttPF Also, the voting period is over because I did, in fact, successfully rubberstamp those proposals.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Fearmongor] changes of the week
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:12 AM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:09 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: AI=Mutable Hmm... I'm treating that as submitting an AI-1 proposal, as I don't believe one CAN set a proposal's AI to an impossible value. FWIW, I was assuming it would fail when I did it. -G.
