DIS: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7818-19

[Aris Merchant]

I vote as follows:

> > 7818+  ais523 1.0  Make Spending Power More Useful

 FOR, on the grounds that the ADoP can remove the Promotor (or at least
start an election) Besides, you can always have a new election, you just
need a lot of support.

>
> > 7819+  Alexis 1.0  Legislating Convention
>
AGAINST, as per Aranea.

-Aris

DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Promotor election

[Aris Merchant]

On Friday, October 21, 2016, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
>
> Except if G. managed to counterscam...
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.

 Good point, although the ratification without objection should do it.
Still... G., would you do an Alexian collapse (as I will try to get people
to call it, unless we have a name already) (a way of collapsing the
gamestate when the person responsible for an action is unclear, by having
all of the possible actors take the same action.)

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Promotor election

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 21 Oct 2016, ais523 wrote:


On Fri, 2016-10-21 at 22:02 +, Alexis Hunt wrote:

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016, 13:41 Luis Ressel  wrote:

Congrats to our new Promotor! I'm glad something is interested in
taking this over after almost two years. If you've got any
questions about your new job, feel free to write me an email.
 

If I am ADoP, I resolve the election as quoted.


Thus reducing the ambiguity to who Aris needs to email if e has
questions about being Promotor? :-P


Except if G. managed to counterscam...

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Promotor election

[Aris Merchant]

On Friday, October 21, 2016, ais523  wrote:

> On Fri, 2016-10-21 at 22:02 +, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016, 13:41 Luis Ressel >
> wrote:
> > > Congrats to our new Promotor! I'm glad something is interested in
> > > taking this over after almost two years. If you've got any
> > > questions about your new job, feel free to write me an email.
> > >
> > If I am ADoP, I resolve the election as quoted.
>
> Thus reducing the ambiguity to who Aris needs to email if e has
> questions about being Promotor? :-P
>
> --
> ais523
>
First of all, that was an informal comment, so I don't think we have
gamestate ambiguity anymore, given that it isn't really part of the
gamestate. Or rather no one and no rules care about it, and it is
unregulated, unless someone makes a retroactive rule (and even then, that's
a legal fiction) Second, Aranea is the person to ask because of eir
experience in the role, not eir office as ADoP.

-Aris

DIS: Re: BUS: Pend war!

[Aris Merchant]

On Friday, October 21, 2016, ais523  wrote:

> I submit the following proposal (AI 1, "Make Spending Power More
> Useful"):
> 
> In rule 2445, replace the following paragraph:
> {{{
>   A player can flip a proposal's imminence to "pending" by
>   announcement, unless e has already done so a number of times
>   that week that equals or exceeds the total spending power of the
>   offices e holds.
> }}}
> with
> {{{
>   A player can flip a proposal's imminence by announcement, unless
>   e has already done so a number of times that week that equals or
>
> exceeds the total spending power of the offices e holds.
> }}}
> 
>
> (The idea is that if there's some sort of disagreement as to whether a
> proposal is worth pending, players or teams of players can basically
> have a fight flipping the imminence back and forth until one or the
> other has run out of spending power. If the Promotor is involved in the
> fight, e's likely to win, both due to eir high spending power and due
> to eir ability to distribute a proposal immediately after pending it,
> thus denying other players a chance to interfere.)
>
> --
> ais523
>

I second this, and I'm sure our new promotor will like it. Just in case,
can we add 2/3 majority  (of all players, it's not ever supposed to
actually happen) overrule?

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The List

[Aris Merchant]

On Friday, October 21, 2016, ais523  wrote:

> On Fri, 2016-10-21 at 12:11 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > On Friday, October 21, 2016, ais523  >
> > wrote:
> > > I submit the following proposal (AI 1, "The List"):
> > > 
> > > Enact a new power-1 rule with the following text:
> > > {{{
> > > A player is on the List if they have ever mentioned the List in a
> > > public forum or a discussion forum.
> > > }}}
> > > 
> > What is this for?
> It's a mechanic borrowed from a couple of other places. It doesn't
> actually /do/ anything in either of those places, but surprisingly many
> people are incredibly paranoid of ending up on the List and try to
> avoid it, which can be somewhat amusing. A discussion of it came up
> elsewhere and it inspired me to see how it'd function in the context of
> Agora.
>
> You're the second member, I guess.
>
> --
> ais523
>

This is a draft from before your latest email, parts of which may no longer
be relevant. "If so, keeping track of this (whatever this rule may or may
not describe) is going to be a pain. If we intend to use it, it (same
thing, whatever it may or may not describe) needs to be in someone's
report, and preferably self-ratifying.  (Unless ambiguity is the point)
Just make this clear, can we also add that the action is taken at the time
they mentioned whatever they may or may-not mention. This (your rule) would
have to be retroactive, but legal fictions are fun. I also note that the
IRC is a discussion forum, which could mess things (nonspecific, merely a
result of seeing the words "discussion forum" in your proposal) up a bit. "

I'd also argue that I didn't mention anything. (Except your proposal as a
whole) I may have talked *about* something, but I don't think I've
mentioned anything. I talked about the proposed rule, and I quoted you, but
I don't think I ever mentioned any particular part of the rule, and anyway,
a rule is not what it describes. I also note that I like your *proposal* as
separate from any of its particular content.

-Aris

DIS: Re: BUS: The List

[Aris Merchant]

On Friday, October 21, 2016, ais523  wrote:

> I submit the following proposal (AI 1, "The List"):
> 
> Enact a new power-1 rule with the following text:
> {{{
> A player is on the List if they have ever mentioned the List in a
> public forum or a discussion forum.
> }}}
> 
>
> --
> ais523
>
 What is this for?

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The List

[ais523]

On Fri, 2016-10-21 at 12:11 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Friday, October 21, 2016, ais523 
> wrote:
> > I submit the following proposal (AI 1, "The List"):
> > 
> > Enact a new power-1 rule with the following text:
> > {{{
> > A player is on the List if they have ever mentioned the List in a
> > public forum or a discussion forum.
> > }}}
> > 
> What is this for?
It's a mechanic borrowed from a couple of other places. It doesn't
actually /do/ anything in either of those places, but surprisingly many
people are incredibly paranoid of ending up on the List and try to
avoid it, which can be somewhat amusing. A discussion of it came up
elsewhere and it inspired me to see how it'd function in the context of
Agora.

You're the second member, I guess.

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Promotor election

[Aris Merchant]

On Friday, October 21, 2016, Luis Ressel  wrote:
>
> Outcome: Aris
>
> =
>
> Congrats to our new Promotor! I'm glad something is interested in
> taking this over after almost two years. If you've got any questions
> about your new job, feel free to write me an email.
>
> --
> aranea
>
Well, thanks to everyone who voted for me, and to aranea for opening up the
position and helping me get it. I'm sure I'll be keeping all of my campaign
promises. :)  (I never made any) I'll do my best to fulfill the obligations
of the office. I'm going to keep the report format pretty much the same for
now, for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that it seems to work
well and make sense.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Deputy ADoP] Correct (Abridged) Payroll & Metareport

[Alexis Hunt]

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 10:25 AM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Oct 2016, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > Rule 2143 has an exacting standard. It says that the information must
> > be published. A mostly-correct report is not, by its definition,
> > sufficient to fulfill the duties of the office. Therefore aranea has
> > failed to publish the ADoP's report since August.
>
> I believe it has been found that a reasonable effort of a report still
> satisfies the duties of producing a report, even if there are errors.
> Anyone have a better memory of CFJs for this before I go digging?
>

This may also have been under differently-worded rules.

This interpretation also wholly breaks self-ratification.  If only 100%
> correct documents are "reports", and only "reports" self-ratify, then
> only 100% correct documents would self-ratify, which rather defeats the
> purpose (and calls into question any and every past self-ratification
> of a report error, of which there have been many).
>

Self-ratification in fact explicitly accounts for this by providing that
any document purporting to be a report self-ratifies.

>
> So even without past precedent, there's a strong implication that we
> define mostly-complete/correct reports as "reports".  Exactly how much
> of a report has to be present for it to be a report is a gray area.
>
> -G.
>

As a result, I think the implication is in the other direction: that the
obligation works differently from self-ratification.

-Alexis

DIS: Re: BUS: [Deputy ADoP] Correct (Abridged) Payroll & Metareport

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 21 Oct 2016, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> Rule 2143 has an exacting standard. It says that the information must 
> be published. A mostly-correct report is not, by its definition,
> sufficient to fulfill the duties of the office. Therefore aranea has 
> failed to publish the ADoP's report since August.

I believe it has been found that a reasonable effort of a report still 
satisfies the duties of producing a report, even if there are errors.
Anyone have a better memory of CFJs for this before I go digging?

This interpretation also wholly breaks self-ratification.  If only 100%
correct documents are "reports", and only "reports" self-ratify, then 
only 100% correct documents would self-ratify, which rather defeats the 
purpose (and calls into question any and every past self-ratification
of a report error, of which there have been many).

So even without past precedent, there's a strong implication that we 
define mostly-complete/correct reports as "reports".  Exactly how much
of a report has to be present for it to be a report is a gray area.

-G.

Re: DIS: BUS: There Really Is A Scam This Time

[Luis Ressel]

On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 12:43:13 +0200
Luis Ressel  wrote:

> Btw, there is a way to immediately force Alexis out of office, if you
> want to prevent him from pending his proposal. However, it's somewhat
> cheaty and would require coordinated activity by three players.
> 
> Let's see if someone can figure out what I mean. :)

Actually, it'd require four players.

-- 
aranea

Re: DIS: BUS: (attn aranea) There Really Is A Scam This Time

[Luis Ressel]

On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 12:34:21 +0200
Luis Ressel  wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 11:03:52 +0100
> ais523  wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2016-10-20 at 23:46 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > A good first move in this situation might be to flip the spending
> > power of all offices Alexis holds (Referee, in this case) to 0, thus
> > making the proposal impossible to pend without outside help or
> > taking on another office  
> 
> Good idea, but unfortunately, 0 isn't a valid spending power (the
> allowed range is {1..10}).
> 

Btw, there is a way to immediately force Alexis out of office, if you
want to prevent him from pending his proposal. However, it's somewhat
cheaty and would require coordinated activity by three players.

Let's see if someone can figure out what I mean. :)

-- 
aranea

Re: DIS: BUS: (attn aranea) There Really Is A Scam This Time

[Luis Ressel]

On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 11:03:52 +0100
ais523  wrote:

> On Thu, 2016-10-20 at 23:46 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> A good first move in this situation might be to flip the spending
> power of all offices Alexis holds (Referee, in this case) to 0, thus
> making the proposal impossible to pend without outside help or taking
> on another office

Good idea, but unfortunately, 0 isn't a valid spending power (the
allowed range is {1..10}).

-- 
aranea

Re: DIS: BUS: (attn aranea) There Really Is A Scam This Time

[ais523]

On Thu, 2016-10-20 at 23:46 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> And why would anyone vote for this? What's the loophole you're using? I
> assume we have to wait and see, but unless you have a loophole... Stoping
> this from working may require CFJs, but the damage can be minimized even if
> it passes... Wait a sec. Have you thought this through? Because it looks
> like you may be able to jam up CFJs, and I'm not sure you intend your
> destruction to go that far. Then again, you could always not do it...
> (Sorry if that was badly phrased, it's late. I haven't thought through this
> that thoroughly, but  I'm assuming it would be better not to let this sit
> without saying something.)

This is almost certainly intended to be forced through via some method
that doesn't involve other players (or at least, Agora at large) voting
for it. People try it every now and then. The vast majority of attempts
to do this fail, although it has succeeded on occasion.

Because Alexis is aiming for a power-3 dictatorship rather than just a
win, it shows a fairly high level of confidence and/or risk-taking in
the scam, as other players will try harder to stop it. A good first
move in this situation might be to flip the spending power of all
offices Alexis holds (Referee, in this case) to 0, thus making the
proposal impossible to pend without outside help or taking on another
office; this sort of pre-emptive counterscam would probably be
unsporting if Alexis were merely aiming for a win, but taking extra
steps to complicate the situation is probably worth it against a
dictatorship.

FWIW, counterscamming and counter-counter-scamming are one of my
favourite parts of the game; you don't get the opportunity all that
often. (And generally, I value a good exchange of scams more than I
value winning.) Note that one fairly common move in a scam war that's
not necessarily that obvious is to bribe some of the counterscammers
(perhaps secretly) with some of the rewards of the scam (i.e. "if that
works, we split the profits"). Alexis' proposal is easily sufficiently
powerful to share the rewards with someone else, so this is a
possibility that anyone on the counterscam side will need to be aware
of (either by watching out for potential collusion, or via actively
trying to change sides).

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7815-17

[Luis Ressel]

On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 06:13:33 +
Alexis Hunt  wrote:

> I award aranea a Green Card for distributing Proposal 7816 which was
> not pending.

Proposal 7816 was pending. Read my distribution message again.

> P.S. Please remember to use Spivak pronouns.

Meh. I usually don't care about that, especially when I'm specifically
addressing an individual.

-- 
aranea

DIS: Ideas from a bastion of democracy

[Aris Merchant]

On Thursday, October 20, 2016, Alexis Hunt > wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 12:51 AM Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Would people be interested in a thesis explaining what can be found about
> the various patent titles?
>
> -Alexis
>

 I certainly would. I assume the others would as well. People will be
intrested if you're willing to spend the time to go back and look at pretty
much anything even vaguely interesting. Whether you'll get a degree for it
is another question.

-Aris

DIS: BUS: There Really Is A Scam This Time

[Aris Merchant]

On Thursday, October 20, 2016, Alexis Hunt > wrote:

> I submit the following proposal:
>
> This One's A Scam (AI=3)
> {{{
> Enact a new rule of power 3 entitled "Dictatorship" reading as follows:
>   A Decree is a document clearly labeled as such. The Dictator CAN,
> With Notice,
>   proclaim a Decree. When a Decree is proclaimed, then:
>  1) its power is set to 3,
>  2) it takes effect by applying, to the greatest extent permitted
> by the rules,
> the changes specified in its text to the game state, and then,
>  3) its power is set to 0.
>
> Enact a new rule of power 3 entitled "The Dictator" reading as follows:
>   Alexis is the Dictator.
> }}}
>
> -Alexis
>

 And why would anyone vote for this? What's the loophole you're using? I
assume we have to wait and see, but unless you have a loophole... Stoping
this from working may require CFJs, but the damage can be minimized even if
it passes... Wait a sec. Have you thought this through? Because it looks
like you may be able to jam up CFJs, and I'm not sure you intend your
destruction to go that far. Then again, you could always not do it...
(Sorry if that was badly phrased, it's late. I haven't thought through this
that thoroughly, but  I'm assuming it would be better not to let this sit
without saying something.)

-Aris