Re: DIS: Would I be an Elder if I registered?
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote: I meant buggy requirement as a hypothetical in my quote (as in, satisfies the requirement if it's bugged). FWIW, I meant omd's interpretation when I wrote the rule originally. Not that that really counts for anything. (And not that either interpretation is obviously broken.) Before Steve pointed out the ambiguity, I also read it with omd's interpretation. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3362 assigned to G.
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Fool wrote: Generally I don't think it's true the meta-agreement is subject to amendment by even true nomic. There are still limits. What if we made Agora purport to be played by the NZ All Blacks? This would paralyze the rule until we waited for a confirmed NZ person to post, or would just create a legal fiction of role-playing. It's not a problem. And on the bright side, we might get a Haka. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: My First CFJ
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, omd wrote: On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Lindar Greenwood lindartheb...@gmail.com wrote: I initiate a CFJ on the following: The common vernacular for someone who does something is Xor, where a Xor Xes. By rule 2408 the 'recordkeepor' is the title for one who keeps records (or recordkeepes). By rule 2404,2405,1769, and many more, the 'Promotor' is the title for one who promotes. Therefore, the term 'player' is incorrect. Note that we also have officers, officeholders, voters, publishers, performers, and owners. Generally, only capitalized titles get the or treatment. FWIW, as I recall this spelling idiosynchrasy started early in the game with a misspelling of Rulekeepor, perhaps the first officer position to be added besides the original Speaker. (Although to digress, I think for quite some time the Speaker itself was kept outside the Officer system.) It was later extended to other offices, but back in my day the unusual spelling was only applied to the suffix -keepor. It definitely did _not_ apply to more general -er suffixes, and I recall at least one suggestion for doing so (possibly Bankor) was discarded. Of course this did not prevent a fondness for officer titles whose normal English spelling ended in -or as well. However I see that the current ruleset contains Yak Herdor and (not an office) recruitor. I think all the other -or suffixes I could find are acceptable English spelling (although Promoter vs Promotor seem to have similar numbers of Google hits.) Also, the capitalization customs have changed greatly, in earlier periods it was almost mandatory to capitalize nearly every Agora-specific term. Although this had already been reduced last I was a Player. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3362 assigned to G.
On 09/07/2013 5:46 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Fool wrote: Generally I don't think it's true the meta-agreement is subject to amendment by even true nomic. There are still limits. What if we made Agora purport to be played by the NZ All Blacks? This would paralyze the rule until we waited for a confirmed NZ person to post, or would just create a legal fiction of role-playing. It's not a problem. And on the bright side, we might get a Haka. Rule 101. kamaté kamaté
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: My First CFJ
On Tue, 9 Jul 2013, Ørjan Johansen wrote: Also, the capitalization customs have changed greatly, in earlier periods it was almost mandatory to capitalize nearly every Agora-specific term. Although this had already been reduced last I was a Player. Maud went on a purposeful massive capitalization purge around 2006 when e embarked on a whole-scale restructuring of the ruleset (e.g. introducing the decisions concept). Whenever I write a rule these days I still edit with the Maudian style manual in mind (capitalize when an Agora-specific term is first introduced to indicate you're reading the definition, but not when used later unless it's truly a proper noun).
DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Interior Decorations
On Tue, 9 Jul 2013, Sean Hunt wrote: Ribbon Holdings === ok, is this repealed, or isn't it. I've completely lost track.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3362 assigned to G.
On Tue, 9 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote: On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 20:50 -0400, Fool wrote (about CFJ 3362): Therefore I intend, with two support (and without five Elder objections) to appeal. I call on the appellate court to substitute a verdict of GUILTY, and suggest the death penalty. I support. I object. (Always wanted to do that and have it be meaningful.) It's not though... you CANNOT wear two hats :-P
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Interior Decorations
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Tue, 9 Jul 2013, Sean Hunt wrote: Ribbon Holdings === ok, is this repealed, or isn't it. I've completely lost track. Me too. I posted for safety's sake. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Would I be an Elder if I registered?
On 9 Jul 2013 10:44, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote: On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote: I meant buggy requirement as a hypothetical in my quote (as in, satisfies the requirement if it's bugged). FWIW, I meant omd's interpretation when I wrote the rule originally. Not that that really counts for anything. (And not that either interpretation is obviously broken.) Before Steve pointed out the ambiguity, I also read it with omd's interpretation. This might not be a bug; recruiting old players to defend against invasion would be useful and has a certain romantic appeal. The judge should therefore consider the benefit to the game of this interpretation. That said, if we actually get invaded I shall eat my hat.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3362 assigned to G.
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Tue, 9 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote: I support. I object. (Always wanted to do that and have it be meaningful.) It's not though... you CANNOT wear two hats :-P Pfff. Look, everyone, seems like G. is *poor* and *Irish*. ~ Roujo
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3362 assigned to G.
On Tue, 9 Jul 2013, Jonathan Rouillard wrote: On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Tue, 9 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote: I support. I object. (Always wanted to do that and have it be meaningful.) It's not though... you CANNOT wear two hats :-P Pfff. Look, everyone, seems like G. is *poor* and *Irish*. That's a hat and a coat, not two hats.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Returning Officer] General Election
On Tue, 9 Jul 2013, Charles Walker wrote: (Apologies for the lateness; I meant to do this earlier and got distracted. Incidentally, does anyone else think the salary rule is a little harsh?) That's exactly why I resigned my offices last month, just the cost/benefit analysis of that, especially as it's platonic. I was thinking of fixing it when I did infractions: Missing a single duty would be an infraction but you would be allowed an infraction or two a month and still get your salary. (It wouldn't be platonic because someone would have to infract you). But as I said, now won't get around to that before summer vacation. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Returning Officer] General Election
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 4:22 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: I vote for omd. I vote for myself. Campaign Speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxBW4mPzv6E
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ Rule 2394
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Lindar Greenwood
lindartheb...@gmail.com wrote:
I announce a CFJ on the following text:
{ Announcing in Agora-Business the creation of a promise that, upon
being cashed, causes the player cashing said promise to break a rule,
does not cause the creator of said promise to violate R2394, nor does
it cause the creator of said promise to violate R2394 upon the cashing
of said promise. }
Gratuitous: It is the casher that would be the Executor, not the creator.
DIS: Re: BUS: A belated Happy Birthday!
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Chuck Carroll games...@chuckcarroll.orgwrote: A belated happy 20th birthday to Agora, and wishing you many more! And thanks to all the current Players for keeping Agora alive! Sorry I couldn’t send my wishes during the Birthday proper; I was travelling and had little ability to send email. ** ** Chuck Carroll Grand Hero of Agora Nomic A belated happy birthday to Agora, and a belated hi to Chuck, GHAN. -- OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: scshunt, walker, feel free...
On 8 Jul 2013, at 20:33, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: I'm not going to get around to proposing infractions or ribbon changes anytime soon, if interested parties want to move ahead with that. -g. Will be looking at doing these in a few weeks. -- Walker
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Personnel File Time Sheet
On 9 Jul 2013, at 22:08, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On 9 Jul 2013, at 18:12, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: All office-holders are currently Independent. I CoE this. -- Walker Admitted. Why is this a part of my report. No good reason really. I think there was one in an early sketch of the proposal, which I then removed. -- Walker
DIS: Re: BUS: I preate a cromise.
On Jul 9, 2013, at 7:08 PM, Lindar Greenwood wrote:
The condition for cashing this promise is the following text, where
[Q] is a player other than myself or the player cashing this promise
and [N] is the player cashing this promise:
{ [Q] must exchange with me a majority of eir trading cards, such that
we each have a Controlling Interest in each other. [N] must, only
after I have a Controlling Interest in [Q], taunt the police four
times, each time specifying the integer 14, such that [N] commits the
Class-14 Crime of Naughtiness four times in total. }
I suggest that the playership of Agora interpret this as This promise can be
cashed if and only if [Q] exchanges ..., not This promise can be cashed if
and only if [Q] must exchange ..., on the grounds that the latter
interpretation is frustrating and unnecessary.
—Machiavelli
DIS: Re: BUS: I preate a cromise.
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Lindar Greenwood
lindartheb...@gmail.com wrote:
I create a promise with the following text, where [N] is
representative of the player cashing this promise:
You would have to put this condition into the text of the promise as
once created the promise is a text independent of the message that
created it.
{ I give all of my yaks to [N], thank em politely, and offer a sincere
hug, redeemable at any time. }
The condition for cashing this promise is the following text, where
[Q] is a player other than myself or the player cashing this promise
and [N] is the player cashing this promise:
Ditto
{ [Q] must exchange with me a majority of eir trading cards, such that
we each have a Controlling Interest in each other. [N] must, only
after I have a Controlling Interest in [Q], taunt the police four
times, each time specifying the integer 14, such that [N] commits the
Class-14 Crime of Naughtiness four times in total. }
The following text is the condition required to be true for the
promise not to be destroyed when cashed:
{ Lindar is still a player. }
The following text is the condition under which I, Lindar, the author
of this promise, can destroy this promise:
{ I announce that I destroy this promise. }
Note that this does not allow you to destroy it by announcement. Also,
you still possess the promise rather than having traded it to the
Tree.
-scshunt
DIS: Elder CFJ out there already?
Is there already a CFJ on whether there's a 4-day wait for support actions in the Gerontocracy? R2357 doesn't actually *say* that elder objections make it a w/o objection dependent action with an associated 4-day wait, just that if an intent happens to have enough elder objections, it fails. This doesn't in itself make the support action depend on objections (or at least, it makes it a reasonably debatable point). -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Lindar Sits
That's a shame, I didn't even get a chance to assign a case to you. =P ~ Roujo On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Lindar Greenwood lindartheb...@gmail.com wrote: I lean.
Re: DIS: Elder CFJ out there already?
There is, CFJ 3361, assigned to arkestra at the moment. More info: http://cotc.psychose.ca/viewcase.php?cfj=3361 ~ Roujo On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Is there already a CFJ on whether there's a 4-day wait for support actions in the Gerontocracy? R2357 doesn't actually *say* that elder objections make it a w/o objection dependent action with an associated 4-day wait, just that if an intent happens to have enough elder objections, it fails. This doesn't in itself make the support action depend on objections (or at least, it makes it a reasonably debatable point). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Returning Officer] General Election
On 09/07/2013 4:30 PM, omd wrote: On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 4:22 PM, omdc.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Sean Huntscsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: I vote for omd. I vote for myself. Campaign Speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxBW4mPzv6E Look at this link, around 3:43. You'll see that the Best Party promises a drug-free Parliament by 2020. Now in Agora you're all eligible to vote in the chambers. You are all parliamentarians. Ergo, THE BEST PARTY IS TRYING TO TAKE YOUR DRUGS AWAY. On the other hand, free towels, well, I admit, that's a good promise.
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. Machiavelli, CFJ 3357
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 10:00 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote: I guess this is the Agoran version of tits or GTFO? Well I'm afraid this judg(e)ment cannot be appealed, check the rules. Well I'm not sure that you made one at all, but that's because I stopped reading after HER -scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. Machiavelli, CFJ 3357
Arguments on CFJ 3357: although it appears that this case may have been judged GUILTY, I can't figure out in any case what the sentence was. Additional arguments on CFJ 3357: since I did not possess any VCs on May 18, and I had no reasonable means of obtaining any in a timely fashion, it is not the case that I could have reasonably avoided committing the breach, so condition (e) for a sentence of GUILTY on CFJ 3357 is not satisfied, so I'm scot-free. The fact that I could have destroyed VCs later on is irrelevant, because even if I had done so, I still would have committed the breach. Preemptive arguments on any future CFJ related to CFJ 3357: I believe that CFJ 3357 has not been judged, so I will not attempt to appeal it or obey any sentence imposed by the judgement, and if this behavior causes me to violate a rule, condition (d) for a sentence of GUILTY will not be satisfied. —Machiavelli
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. Machiavelli, CFJ 3357
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote: This judgement takes effect immediately. Long live the Queen. You have six more days. ;p
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. Machiavelli, CFJ 3357
The legal adequacy of this I will leave to actual players to determine; as a kibitzer I merely wished to note that it is an artistic triumph. Bravo, Fool! On 10 July 2013 11:50, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote: HER FELINE MAJESTY DAVY I versus TANNER SWETT (aka MACHIAVELLI) Charles Walker on behalf of the Crown alleges that Machiavelli failed to pay a fine ordered by CFJ 3310, wherein the defendant was convicted of failing to publish an IADoP report, and for which the judgement was, in its entirety, GUILTY - FINE (2 VCs), handed down by Charles Reiss (aka woggle). It seems the Crown in this case presents no further evidence, and Machiavelli has nothing to say for himself either. So who gets to do the digging for you? Muggins, eh? Very well: it turns out that while the defendant did have quite a few VCs when 3310 was initiated (April 22), by the time sentence was passed (May 18, took long enough) all VCs had been reset (May 8), so he had no VCs to destroy. Nor did he thereafter earn a VC, until proposal 7450 passed (June 10), and then VCs were reset (June 17). His next VC was from proposal 7477 (June 29), and this case was initiated 3 days later (July 2). I quote Rule 1504: When a sentence has been assigned as part of a GUILTY judgement, the Accused is known as the ninny, and the sentence is in effect. The valid sentences are: [...] * FINE with an amount of one class of asset, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. An amount is only valid if the currency's backing document binds the ninny (the Rules are considered to bind all players) or the ninny has this amount of the asset, and the backing document specifies a maximum FINE amount, and the amount is no greater than the maximum. When in effect, the ninny SHALL, in a timely fashion, either destroy this amount of eir asset or transfer it to the Lost and Found Department. The ninny is only obliged to perform one destruction or transfer per case, even if sentences of this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more than once. There are some questions in my mind about this rule, foremost, who wrote this junk? I suppose this is the Agoran pragmatism that people keep raving about? Sure, during Agora XX we complained about Agora's initial ruleset, didn't we, well now, you guys have had twenty years, and this is what you all came up with ... look, never mind, rule 217 instructs me to apply common sense and to consider the interests of Agora, and by that standard it is clear that everyone is guilty here. So I just need to find appropriate punishments. Charles Reiss, for your sentencing antics, I fine you twenty berks (same as in town), and I haven't bothered to check if you have any berks, nor do I even know what berks are good for anyway. I just know that if you don't pay, there'll be trouble. Possibly involving a pointy stick. Charles Walker, for making me dig through archives unnecessarily, I sentence you to print out a hard copy of the agora-official mailing list from May onward, therewith to beat yourself over the head until you are cross-eyed. Tanner Swett, for starting this mess by not writing a simple report, I sentence you to three days at a dismal job where you'll be constantly pestered for totally pointless reports like that guy on Office Space. The rest of you, smarten up. Consider yourselves lucky that I'm in a good mood, because I'm usually a hanging judge. This judgement takes effect immediately. Long live the Queen. --Daniel Mehkeri -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
DIS: Re: BUS: Lindar Sits
That's a shame, I didn't even get a chance to assign a case to you. =P ~ Roujo I intend to stand if and only if you intend to assign me an easy case and help me judge, because I don't know how any of this works. =D
DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Ambassador-At-Large and Promotor Elections
On Tue, 9 Jul 2013, Sean Hunt wrote: I hereby initiate the Agoran Decisions to select the holders of the offices of Ambassador-At-Large and Promotor. The vote collector is the IADoP; the eligible voters are the active first-class players. The candidates for Ambassador-At-Large are Walker and Roujo. The candidates for Promotor are omd and Machiavelli. The voting period lasts for 7 days. I see that Roujo is also the CotC. Have you considered Rule 2378? [...] If the Clerk of the Courts ever holds the office of Ambassador-At-Large, then, rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Ambassador- At-Large becomes Assumed. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Ambassador-At-Large and Promotor Elections
On Jul 9, 2013, at 1:41 PM, Jonathan Rouillard wrote: The candidates for Promotor are omd and Machiavelli. I ENDORSE the current Promotor. Perhaps it would be clearest to say I ENDORSE the person who is Promotor as of the time this vote is cast? It's not clear that the phrase the current Promotor, when evaluated ... at the end of the voting period, refers to the Promotor at the time the vote was cast. —Machiavelli
DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Ambassador-At-Large and Promotor Elections
On Jul 9, 2013, at 1:01 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: I hereby initiate the Agoran Decisions to select the holders of the offices of Ambassador-At-Large and Promotor. The vote collector is the IADoP; the eligible voters are the active first-class players. The candidates for Ambassador-At-Large are Walker and Roujo. The candidates for Promotor are omd and Machiavelli. CoE: the alleged initiation of the Promotor election was NTTPF, so no such election exists. —Machiavelli
