Re: DIS: Draft Referee's Report

[Owen Jacobson]

Interesting. Rule 869 says that “A registered person is a player” and secures 
registration (with power=3). Rule 1551 (Ratification) has power 3.1, so it’s 
actually possible that ratification could register someone. I don’t think 
that’s desireable; if nothing else, someone made a player by ratification 
hasn’t agreed to follow the rules, and there are some troubling questions of 
consent.

Any idea how to represent your indeterminate state in the reports?

-o

> On Apr 20, 2017, at 2:13 AM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
> I think it needs to note that I supposedly became a player or once it self 
> ratifies it will make me a player regardless?  (I might CFJ on that concept 
> of playership by ratification just to find out)
> 
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 21:12 Owen Jacobson  > wrote:
> The following is a DRAFT of the upcoming Referee’s report. The content makes 
> some assumptions about Quazie’s ultimate fate.
> 
> Suggestions encouraged!
> 
> -o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: The gig economy

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I disagree. It hasn't seen its second drafting yet, and I think we should 
> discuss it somewhat more. However, I do believe it is traditionally the 
> author's privilege to decide when a proposal is ready for a vote.

I was waiting to see if there was more discussion, but there's been
plenty of good feedback so I'll aim for a 2nd draft by tomorrow (want
to get a jump on assigning the sudden CFJ activity, too!)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: The gig economy

[Aris Merchant]

I disagree. It hasn't seen its second drafting yet, and I think we should
discuss it somewhat more. However, I do believe it is traditionally the
author's privilege to decide when a proposal is ready for a vote.

-Aris

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 3:48 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I recommend we try to move this along to a vote.
>
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> It could be scaling where a person purports to have completed a gig and
>> are awarded five shinies without 2 objections, but with two support it may
>> be increased. This scaling could be proportional to length.
>>
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Aris Merchant <
>> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Minor grammar tweak: in the sentence "the goal of such reports is to
>>> create a more informed population," there is an apparent plurality
>>> mismatch between "reports" and "is". I know that the subject is
>>> actually "the goal", but it feels a bit awkward.
>>>
>>> Suggested substance changes: I'd support removing the once a week
>>> limit. 300 words seems like a rather large requirement, so maybe it
>>> could be reduced? Also maybe make the payment variable by gig, with 5
>>> shinies as the default? There is a potential scam where someone could
>>> get a ton of shinies by releasing a bunch of purported gig fulfilments
>>> right before the end of the Agoran week.
>>>
>>> -Aris
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>>  wrote:
>>> > I would like a new ribbon. Also, I would support this more if there
>>> were not
>>> > a limit on the number of people who could perform it and only a limit
>>> on
>>> > certain things which should only occur once per week.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wednesday, April 19, 2017, Alex Smith 
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, 2017-04-19 at 06:33 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> >> > Proto:  The Gig Economy
>>> >>
>>> >> Haven't checked the details, but I really like this idea. We could
>>> >> definitely do with fewer mandatory-duty offices.
>>> >>
>>> >> I can see an argument for converting the Referee into one of these too
>>> >> (when the game's going slowly, violations other than late reports are
>>> >> rare). Some day we could probably bring back Anarchist within this
>>> >> framework too (although we're likely not at the complexity level where
>>> >> that's useful).
>>> >>
>>> >> I'd support a new colour of ribbon for this. (IIRC, the list of
>>> Ribbons
>>> >> was originally, /way/ back, created by giving a distinct Ribbon for
>>> >> each way to gain currency. The current Ribbons aren't entirely based
>>> on
>>> >> that principle, but there's a lot of overlap, and overlapping it here
>>> >> makes sense.)
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> ais523
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > 
>>> > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: The gig economy

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I recommend we try to move this along to a vote.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> It could be scaling where a person purports to have completed a gig and
> are awarded five shinies without 2 objections, but with two support it may
> be increased. This scaling could be proportional to length.
>
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Aris Merchant  gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Minor grammar tweak: in the sentence "the goal of such reports is to
>> create a more informed population," there is an apparent plurality
>> mismatch between "reports" and "is". I know that the subject is
>> actually "the goal", but it feels a bit awkward.
>>
>> Suggested substance changes: I'd support removing the once a week
>> limit. 300 words seems like a rather large requirement, so maybe it
>> could be reduced? Also maybe make the payment variable by gig, with 5
>> shinies as the default? There is a potential scam where someone could
>> get a ton of shinies by releasing a bunch of purported gig fulfilments
>> right before the end of the Agoran week.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>  wrote:
>> > I would like a new ribbon. Also, I would support this more if there
>> were not
>> > a limit on the number of people who could perform it and only a limit on
>> > certain things which should only occur once per week.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wednesday, April 19, 2017, Alex Smith 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 2017-04-19 at 06:33 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> >> > Proto:  The Gig Economy
>> >>
>> >> Haven't checked the details, but I really like this idea. We could
>> >> definitely do with fewer mandatory-duty offices.
>> >>
>> >> I can see an argument for converting the Referee into one of these too
>> >> (when the game's going slowly, violations other than late reports are
>> >> rare). Some day we could probably bring back Anarchist within this
>> >> framework too (although we're likely not at the complexity level where
>> >> that's useful).
>> >>
>> >> I'd support a new colour of ribbon for this. (IIRC, the list of Ribbons
>> >> was originally, /way/ back, created by giving a distinct Ribbon for
>> >> each way to gain currency. The current Ribbons aren't entirely based on
>> >> that principle, but there's a lot of overlap, and overlapping it here
>> >> makes sense.)
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> ais523
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > 
>> > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> >
>>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Weekly Report

[Quazie]

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:53 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> While I love the idea and I applaud you for taking the time to do that, it
> seems a tad impractical.
>
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>On Thu, 20 Apr 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>> > My Copy of RONR11 would also suggest that it is a point of
>> order, given that it is a custom
>> > of the Assembly.
>> >
>> > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> >
>> >> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Aris Merchant <
>> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> We    On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 9:16 AM Benjamin Schultz <
>> ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> need      On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Kerim Aydin <
>> ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> more   
>> sides  
>> in    Minor point of order for new folks:
>> this   
>> thread    We've historically promoted bottom-posting for replies
>> (with editing of past
>> so thread pieces allowed).  Unfortunately not
>> well-supported by current email
>> let's     clients.  I mildly prefer bottom-posting for things
>> like judicial threads with
>> think     counter arguments.  Ultimately, I don't mind either
>> way, but the combination of
>> out of    different people using both bottom and top-posting
>> makes these longer threads a
>> the bit challenging to follow :)
>> box.   >>>
>> >>>
>> -G.>>> Nitpicking point of procedure:
>> >>>
>> >>> You raised a point of personal privilege, having to do with
>> ease of or impediments to
>> >>> participation, instead of a point of order, a breach of
>> procedure.  At least according
>> >>> to RONR10, and Agora by custom follows S
>> >>
>> >> Given that it affects everyone, wouldn't it be a point of the
>> privileges of the assembly
>> >> (a point of privilege affecting the assembly, depending on
>> where you look)? That's what
>> >> my copy of RONR11 seems to suggest, although I may well be
>> misinterpreting it.
>> >>
>> >> -Aris
>>
>>
>
G. is anything but practical if my memory is accurate.  If the Research
Assistant existed right now I'd make a request for historical data on the
topic.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Weekly Report

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

While I love the idea and I applaud you for taking the time to do that, it
seems a tad impractical.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
>On Thu, 20 Apr 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > My Copy of RONR11 would also suggest that it is a point of
> order, given that it is a custom
> > of the Assembly.
> >
> > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >
> >> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> We    On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 9:16 AM Benjamin Schultz <
> ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> need      On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Kerim Aydin <
> ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> more   
> sides  
> in    Minor point of order for new folks:
> this   
> thread    We've historically promoted bottom-posting for replies
> (with editing of past
> so thread pieces allowed).  Unfortunately not
> well-supported by current email
> let's     clients.  I mildly prefer bottom-posting for things like
> judicial threads with
> think     counter arguments.  Ultimately, I don't mind either way,
> but the combination of
> out of    different people using both bottom and top-posting makes
> these longer threads a
> the bit challenging to follow :)
> box.   >>>
> >>>
> -G.>>> Nitpicking point of procedure:
> >>>
> >>> You raised a point of personal privilege, having to do with
> ease of or impediments to
> >>> participation, instead of a point of order, a breach of
> procedure.  At least according
> >>> to RONR10, and Agora by custom follows S
> >>
> >> Given that it affects everyone, wouldn't it be a point of the
> privileges of the assembly
> >> (a point of privilege affecting the assembly, depending on
> where you look)? That's what
> >> my copy of RONR11 seems to suggest, although I may well be
> misinterpreting it.
> >>
> >> -Aris
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Weekly Report

[Kerim Aydin]

   On Thu, 20 Apr 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> My Copy of RONR11 would also suggest that it is a point of order, 
given that it is a custom
> of the Assembly.
>
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Aris Merchant 
 wrote:
 
We    On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 9:16 AM Benjamin Schultz 
 wrote:
need      On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Kerim Aydin 
 wrote:
more    
sides   
in    Minor point of order for new folks:
this    
thread    We've historically promoted bottom-posting for replies (with 
editing of past
so thread pieces allowed).  Unfortunately not well-supported by 
current email
let's     clients.  I mildly prefer bottom-posting for things like 
judicial threads with
think     counter arguments.  Ultimately, I don't mind either way, but 
the combination of
out of    different people using both bottom and top-posting makes 
these longer threads a
the bit challenging to follow :)
box.   >>>
>>> 
-G.>>> Nitpicking point of procedure:
>>>
>>> You raised a point of personal privilege, having to do with ease of 
or impediments to
>>> participation, instead of a point of order, a breach of procedure.  
At least according
>>> to RONR10, and Agora by custom follows S
>>
>> Given that it affects everyone, wouldn't it be a point of the 
privileges of the assembly
>> (a point of privilege affecting the assembly, depending on where you 
look)? That's what
>> my copy of RONR11 seems to suggest, although I may well be 
misinterpreting it.
>>
>> -Aris

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Weekly Report

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

My Copy of RONR11 would also suggest that it is a point of order, given
that it is a custom of the Assembly.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 9:16 AM Benjamin Schultz <
> ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Kerim Aydin 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Minor point of order for new folks:
>>>
>>> We've historically promoted bottom-posting for replies (with editing of
>>> past
>>> thread pieces allowed).  Unfortunately not well-supported by current
>>> email
>>> clients.  I mildly prefer bottom-posting for things like judicial
>>> threads with
>>> counter arguments.  Ultimately, I don't mind either way, but the
>>> combination of
>>> different people using both bottom and top-posting makes these longer
>>> threads a
>>> bit challenging to follow :)
>>>
>>
>> Nitpicking point of procedure:
>>
>> You raised a point of personal privilege, having to do with ease of or
>> impediments to participation, instead of a point of order, a breach of
>> procedure.  At least according to RONR10, and Agora by custom follows S
>>
> Given that it affects everyone, wouldn't it be a point of the privileges
> of the assembly (a point of privilege affecting the assembly, depending on
> where you look)? That's what my copy of RONR11 seems to suggest, although I
> may well be misinterpreting it.
>
> -Aris
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Weekly Report

[Aris Merchant]

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 9:16 AM Benjamin Schultz 
wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Minor point of order for new folks:
>>
>> We've historically promoted bottom-posting for replies (with editing of
>> past
>> thread pieces allowed).  Unfortunately not well-supported by current email
>> clients.  I mildly prefer bottom-posting for things like judicial threads
>> with
>> counter arguments.  Ultimately, I don't mind either way, but the
>> combination of
>> different people using both bottom and top-posting makes these longer
>> threads a
>> bit challenging to follow :)
>>
>
> Nitpicking point of procedure:
>
> You raised a point of personal privilege, having to do with ease of or
> impediments to participation, instead of a point of order, a breach of
> procedure.  At least according to RONR10, and Agora by custom follows S
>
Given that it affects everyone, wouldn't it be a point of the privileges of
the assembly (a point of privilege affecting the assembly, depending on
where you look)? That's what my copy of RONR11 seems to suggest, although I
may well be misinterpreting it.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Weekly Report

[Benjamin Schultz]

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> Minor point of order for new folks:
>
> We've historically promoted bottom-posting for replies (with editing of
> past
> thread pieces allowed).  Unfortunately not well-supported by current email
> clients.  I mildly prefer bottom-posting for things like judicial threads
> with
> counter arguments.  Ultimately, I don't mind either way, but the
> combination of
> different people using both bottom and top-posting makes these longer
> threads a
> bit challenging to follow :)
>

Nitpicking point of procedure:

You raised a point of personal privilege, having to do with ease of or
impediments to participation, instead of a point of order, a breach of
procedure.  At least according to RONR10, and Agora by custom follows S

Re: DIS: Draft Referee's Report

[Quazie]

I think it needs to note that I supposedly became a player or once it self
ratifies it will make me a player regardless?  (I might CFJ on that concept
of playership by ratification just to find out)

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 21:12 Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> The following is a DRAFT of the upcoming Referee’s report. The content
> makes some assumptions about Quazie’s ultimate fate.
>
> Suggestions encouraged!
>
> -o
>
> As Referee, I believe there are no outstanding no rules violations in
> the preceding Agoran week for which a Card has not already been issued.
> I publish the following report:
>
> Referee's Weekly Report
>
> Date of this report: Sun, 23 Apr 2017
> Date of last report: N/A
>
>
> Recent events (all times UTC)
>
> - previous report -
> - time of last report -
> Wed, 19 Apr 2017 23:29:03  Quazie given a Yellow Card for Bankruptcy
>
>
> Green Cards: None
>
>
> Yellow Cards:
>
> Player   By   Until  Reason   Apology Words
> ---
> Quazie   oMay 19, 2017   Bankruptcy   * determinate
>   * certain
>   * distinct
>   * definite
>   * precise
>   * recognizable
>   * exact
>   * fixed
>   * player
>   * umami
>
>
> Red Cards: None
>
> Pink Slips: None
>
>
>