Re: DIS: Another UTF-8 question (for o or someone else)

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:


Could someone look at the index for cases:
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/

And tell me why Ørjan's name displays correctly in CFJ 3565,
but not in CFJ 3470?


The first case involves a quoted message including 天火狐's CJK nick, and 
so probably got sent as UTF-8.


The second case has no special characters other than my own name, and for 
such messages my mailer (terminal Alpine) seems to use ISO-8859-15 (a 
western European charset, the revision of ISO-8859-1 with the euro sign, 
iirc) for sending.



Further, if you click through to the pure text version, the
situation is reversed.


ISO-8859-15 is mostly compatible with the Windows Codepage 1252 and 
ISO-8859-1 encodings, so if your pure text is served as either of those or 
something similar, the ISO-8859-15 is likely to be shown correctly in a 
browser.


For the other one, I can see it correctly as pure text by forcing UTF-8.


I'm guessing one uses a UTF-8 Ø, but the other uses some form
of extended ASCII?  So one displays in html not text, and the
other is vice versa?  And given that I get these from cutting
and pasting from email, is there any convenient way to tell
other than seeing the mistake or always having a hex editor
open?


Finding out my sending charset was surprisingly awkward because it's only 
given as a multipart header (for some reason it uses multipart format even 
though there is only one part), not a header of the email itself. Its 
format in the raw mailbox file looks like


Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE

*Sigh*, I think these days, cutting and pasting ought to convert via 
Unicode to work properly.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport mark...9?

[VJ Rada]

sshhh both reports are now late but i wanted to report on last week
and not trickle over to this one.


my reporting is so bad *facepalm*.

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> Yes, but the report is based on the effective date.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>> On Oct 1, 2017, at 8:49 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>>
>> Except it *is* late now because it's October.
>>
>> On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 at 20:42 VJ Rada  wrote:
>> Notably this makes the FLR also not late. Mark 10 let's go. COE: The
>> FLR isn't late.
>>
>> I accept my CoE
>>
>> =Metareport=
>> This report is effective as of 11pm GMT on Sunday the 31st.
>> Date of Last Report: 2017-09-23
>> Consolidation (filled offices over officeholders): 1.89
>> Filled offices %:88.89
>> Late reports %: 5.89
>>
>> Please do not call elections for every office thank you
>>
>> OFFICES
>>
>> OfficeHolderSinceLast Election  Can
>> Elect[4] 
>> ---
>> ArbitorG. 2017-09-15   2017-09-14Y
>> Assessor2017-09-27   2017-09-28
>> ADoP[1]  V.J. Rada  2017-06-05   2017-09-06Y
>> Herald G. 2017-09-06   2017-09-06Y
>> Prime Minister VJ[2] 2017-09-13   2017-09-06Y
>> Promotor Aris   2016-10-21   2017-09-14Y
>> Referee   o   2017-04-17   2017-09-14Y
>> Registrar PSS[3]  2017-04-18   2017-09-14 Y
>> Regkeepor   Aris   2017-07-06  2017-09-06 Y
>> Reportor 天火狐2017-08-10  2017-09-06 Y
>> Rulekeepor  Gaelan  2017-05-17   2017-09-14 Y
>> Secretaryo.  2016-11-06   2017-09-14 Y
>> Speaker  Quazie   2017-08-26   2014-04-21Never
>> Superintendent V[2]  2017-09-28   2017-09-22
>> Surveyor o2017-05-08   2017-09-14 Y
>> Tailor  Alexis 2017-10-01  2017-09-28   Y
>> Agronimist  o.   2017-09-21   2017-09-14 Y
>> FearmongorG.   2017-09-27  Never Y
>>  
>> --
>> [1]Associate Director of Personnel
>> [2]V.J. Rada
>> [3]Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> [4]Anyone may inititate elections for these positions without being
>> the ADoP or 4 support.
>>
>> REPORTS
>> Office  M[1]  Report Last Published 
>> Late[2]
>> -
>> ADoP[3]   Offices2017-09-24
>> Herald Y   Patent titles 2017-09-04
>> Promotor  Proposal pool   2017-09-25
>> RefereeRule violations  2017-09-26
>> Registrar  Players, Fora2017-09-24
>> Registrar  Y  Player history   2017-09-04
>> RegkeeporRegulations  2017-09-16
>> Reportor   The Agoran Newspaper 2017-09-21
>> Rulekeepor   Short Logical Ruleset2017-09-29
>> Rulekeepor   Y  Full Logical Ruleset  2017-08-25
>> Secretary OLEBaS[4]  2017-09-28
>> Secretary Y  Charters  2017-09-02
>> Superintendent  Agencies (incremental) 2017-09-27
>> Superintendent  Y  Agencies (Full)2017-09-27
>> Surveyor   Estates   2017-09-26
>> TailorY  Ribbons  2017-10-01
>> Agronomist   Farms Never
>> !!![6]
>>
>> -
>> [1] Monthly
>> [2] ! = 1 period missed. !! = 2 periods missed. !!! = 3+ periods missed.
>> [3] Associate Director of Personnel
>> [4] Organizations, Lockout, Expenditure, Balances, and Shinies
>> [5]I know that the Rulekeepor updated the FLR with the SLR, but e
>> didn't post it separately to a public forum.
>> [6]Paging o.: no news is some news.
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 10:40 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> > I accept Fire-Fox's CoE
>> >
>> > =Metareport=
>> > This report is effective as of 11pm GMT on Sunday the 31st.
>> > Date of Last Report: 2017-09-23
>> > Consolidation (filled offices over officeholders): 1.89
>> > Filled offices %:88.89
>> > Late reports %: 11.76
>> >
>> > Please do not call elections for every office thank you
>> >
>> > OFFICES
>> >
>> > OfficeHolderSinceLast Election  Can
>> > Elect[4] 

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport mark...9?

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Yes, but the report is based on the effective date.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Oct 1, 2017, at 8:49 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> 
> Except it *is* late now because it's October.
> 
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 at 20:42 VJ Rada  wrote:
> Notably this makes the FLR also not late. Mark 10 let's go. COE: The
> FLR isn't late.
> 
> I accept my CoE
> 
> =Metareport=
> This report is effective as of 11pm GMT on Sunday the 31st.
> Date of Last Report: 2017-09-23
> Consolidation (filled offices over officeholders): 1.89
> Filled offices %:88.89
> Late reports %: 5.89
> 
> Please do not call elections for every office thank you
> 
> OFFICES
> 
> OfficeHolderSinceLast Election  Can
> Elect[4] 
> ---
> ArbitorG. 2017-09-15   2017-09-14Y
> Assessor2017-09-27   2017-09-28
> ADoP[1]  V.J. Rada  2017-06-05   2017-09-06Y
> Herald G. 2017-09-06   2017-09-06Y
> Prime Minister VJ[2] 2017-09-13   2017-09-06Y
> Promotor Aris   2016-10-21   2017-09-14Y
> Referee   o   2017-04-17   2017-09-14Y
> Registrar PSS[3]  2017-04-18   2017-09-14 Y
> Regkeepor   Aris   2017-07-06  2017-09-06 Y
> Reportor 天火狐2017-08-10  2017-09-06 Y
> Rulekeepor  Gaelan  2017-05-17   2017-09-14 Y
> Secretaryo.  2016-11-06   2017-09-14 Y
> Speaker  Quazie   2017-08-26   2014-04-21Never
> Superintendent V[2]  2017-09-28   2017-09-22
> Surveyor o2017-05-08   2017-09-14 Y
> Tailor  Alexis 2017-10-01  2017-09-28   Y
> Agronimist  o.   2017-09-21   2017-09-14 Y
> FearmongorG.   2017-09-27  Never Y
>  
> --
> [1]Associate Director of Personnel
> [2]V.J. Rada
> [3]Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> [4]Anyone may inititate elections for these positions without being
> the ADoP or 4 support.
> 
> REPORTS
> Office  M[1]  Report Last Published 
> Late[2]
> -
> ADoP[3]   Offices2017-09-24
> Herald Y   Patent titles 2017-09-04
> Promotor  Proposal pool   2017-09-25
> RefereeRule violations  2017-09-26
> Registrar  Players, Fora2017-09-24
> Registrar  Y  Player history   2017-09-04
> RegkeeporRegulations  2017-09-16
> Reportor   The Agoran Newspaper 2017-09-21
> Rulekeepor   Short Logical Ruleset2017-09-29
> Rulekeepor   Y  Full Logical Ruleset  2017-08-25
> Secretary OLEBaS[4]  2017-09-28
> Secretary Y  Charters  2017-09-02
> Superintendent  Agencies (incremental) 2017-09-27
> Superintendent  Y  Agencies (Full)2017-09-27
> Surveyor   Estates   2017-09-26
> TailorY  Ribbons  2017-10-01
> Agronomist   Farms Never!!![6]
> 
> -
> [1] Monthly
> [2] ! = 1 period missed. !! = 2 periods missed. !!! = 3+ periods missed.
> [3] Associate Director of Personnel
> [4] Organizations, Lockout, Expenditure, Balances, and Shinies
> [5]I know that the Rulekeepor updated the FLR with the SLR, but e
> didn't post it separately to a public forum.
> [6]Paging o.: no news is some news.
> 
> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 10:40 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> > I accept Fire-Fox's CoE
> >
> > =Metareport=
> > This report is effective as of 11pm GMT on Sunday the 31st.
> > Date of Last Report: 2017-09-23
> > Consolidation (filled offices over officeholders): 1.89
> > Filled offices %:88.89
> > Late reports %: 11.76
> >
> > Please do not call elections for every office thank you
> >
> > OFFICES
> >
> > OfficeHolderSinceLast Election  Can
> > Elect[4] 
> > ---
> > ArbitorG. 2017-09-15   2017-09-14Y
> > Assessor2017-09-27   2017-09-28
> > ADoP[1]  V.J. Rada  2017-06-05   2017-09-06Y
> > Herald G. 2017-09-06   

DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport mark...9?

[Alexis Hunt]

Except it *is* late now because it's October.

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 at 20:42 VJ Rada  wrote:

> Notably this makes the FLR also not late. Mark 10 let's go. COE: The
> FLR isn't late.
>
> I accept my CoE
>
> =Metareport=
> This report is effective as of 11pm GMT on Sunday the 31st.
> Date of Last Report: 2017-09-23
> Consolidation (filled offices over officeholders): 1.89
> Filled offices %:88.89
> Late reports %: 5.89
>
> Please do not call elections for every office thank you
>
> OFFICES
>
> OfficeHolderSinceLast Election  Can
> Elect[4]
> ---
> ArbitorG. 2017-09-15   2017-09-14Y
> Assessor2017-09-27   2017-09-28
> ADoP[1]  V.J. Rada  2017-06-05   2017-09-06Y
> Herald G. 2017-09-06   2017-09-06Y
> Prime Minister VJ[2] 2017-09-13   2017-09-06Y
> Promotor Aris   2016-10-21   2017-09-14Y
> Referee   o   2017-04-17   2017-09-14Y
> Registrar PSS[3]  2017-04-18   2017-09-14 Y
> Regkeepor   Aris   2017-07-06  2017-09-06 Y
> Reportor 天火狐2017-08-10  2017-09-06 Y
> Rulekeepor  Gaelan  2017-05-17   2017-09-14 Y
> Secretaryo.  2016-11-06   2017-09-14 Y
> Speaker  Quazie   2017-08-26   2014-04-21Never
> Superintendent V[2]  2017-09-28   2017-09-22
> Surveyor o2017-05-08   2017-09-14 Y
> Tailor  Alexis 2017-10-01  2017-09-28   Y
> Agronimist  o.   2017-09-21   2017-09-14 Y
> FearmongorG.   2017-09-27  Never Y
>
>  
> --
> [1]Associate Director of Personnel
> [2]V.J. Rada
> [3]Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> [4]Anyone may inititate elections for these positions without being
> the ADoP or 4 support.
>
> REPORTS
> Office  M[1]  Report Last Published
>  Late[2]
>
> -
> ADoP[3]   Offices2017-09-24
> Herald Y   Patent titles 2017-09-04
> Promotor  Proposal pool   2017-09-25
> RefereeRule violations  2017-09-26
> Registrar  Players, Fora2017-09-24
> Registrar  Y  Player history   2017-09-04
> RegkeeporRegulations  2017-09-16
> Reportor   The Agoran Newspaper 2017-09-21
> Rulekeepor   Short Logical Ruleset2017-09-29
> Rulekeepor   Y  Full Logical Ruleset  2017-08-25
> Secretary OLEBaS[4]  2017-09-28
> Secretary Y  Charters  2017-09-02
> Superintendent  Agencies (incremental) 2017-09-27
> Superintendent  Y  Agencies (Full)2017-09-27
> Surveyor   Estates   2017-09-26
> TailorY  Ribbons  2017-10-01
> Agronomist   Farms Never
> !!![6]
>
>
> -
> [1] Monthly
> [2] ! = 1 period missed. !! = 2 periods missed. !!! = 3+ periods missed.
> [3] Associate Director of Personnel
> [4] Organizations, Lockout, Expenditure, Balances, and Shinies
> [5]I know that the Rulekeepor updated the FLR with the SLR, but e
> didn't post it separately to a public forum.
> [6]Paging o.: no news is some news.
>
> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 10:40 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> > I accept Fire-Fox's CoE
> >
> > =Metareport=
> > This report is effective as of 11pm GMT on Sunday the 31st.
> > Date of Last Report: 2017-09-23
> > Consolidation (filled offices over officeholders): 1.89
> > Filled offices %:88.89
> > Late reports %: 11.76
> >
> > Please do not call elections for every office thank you
> >
> > OFFICES
> >
> > OfficeHolderSinceLast Election  Can
> > Elect[4]
> ---
> > ArbitorG. 2017-09-15   2017-09-14Y
> > Assessor2017-09-27   2017-09-28
> > ADoP[1]  V.J. Rada  2017-06-05   2017-09-06Y
> > Herald G. 2017-09-06   2017-09-06Y
> > Prime Minister VJ[2] 2017-09-13   2017-09-06Y
> > Promotor Aris   2016-10-21   2017-09-14Y
> > Referee   o   2017-04-17   2017-09-14Y
> > 

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: [Promtor] Pend Reminder

[Aris Merchant]

On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> I retract Lint Screen, then create and pend (with a shiny) this proposal:
>
> =
> “The Lint Screen” with AI 1 by Gaelan
>
> Create a rule “The Lint Screen” with Power 1: {{
> The Lint Screen is a singleton switch, tracked by the Promotor with possible 
> values including all lists of text. The default value is an empty list. The 
> items in the list SHOULD contain a list of common errors in proposals. Any 
> player CAN flip The Lint Screen by adding, modifying, or removing an item 
> with Consent.
> }}
>
> Add this as a new paragraph to 2445 “How to Pend a Proposal”: {{
> It is IMPOSSIBLE to pend a proposal unless the pending player states in a 
> public message that they have reviewed (“linted”) the proposal for the issues 
> listed in the Lint Screen.
> }}

Nitpick: Can you change "It is IMPOSSIBLE to pend a proposal unless
the pending player states in a public message that they have reviewed
(“linted”) the proposal for the issues listed in the Lint Screen." to
"It is IMPOSSIBLE to pend a proposal unless the pending player states
in the message in which e pends the proposal that e has reviewed
(“listed”) it for the issues listed in the Lint Screen."  I'd prefer
not to have people splitting it across multiple messages, and you've
also used a "they" instead of an "e". I'll pay you back the shiny.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Proto: Crime Improvements

[Gaelan Steele]

Not sure how this works with regards to reports.

Gaelan

> On Oct 1, 2017, at 1:42 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> "A person SHALL not act on behalf of another person if doing so causes the
>  second person to violate the rules. A person CANNOT act on behalf of another
>  person to do anything except perform a game action; in particular, a person
>  CANNOT act on behalf of another person to send a message, only to perform
>  specific actions that might be taken within a message."

Re: DIS: Criminal appeals/process reform

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 at 18:13 Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
>   Is everyone working on one of these?
> 
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, yes. 

I for one don't have any big scheme.  It's just minor things I've noticed 
as Arbitor, but I was waiting for one of these big schemes to come through
so my fixes didn't get over-written.  If all the big schemes are a few 
distributions away from being ready I might propose some of the smaller 
fixes though.

Re: DIS: Criminal appeals/process reform

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 at 19:01 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Mine is based on the Roman court system and integrates civil and criminal
> procedures.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com


This sounds interesting! Perhaps circulate a proto-proto?

DIS: [Promtor] Pend Reminder

[Aris Merchant]

The proposal pool currently contains the following unpended proposals:

IDAuthor(s) AI   Title
---
pp1  nichdel2.0  Basic Income
pp2  Gaelan 1.0  The Lint Screen
pp3  o, G.  2.0  Passive Income
pp4  nichdel3.0  Slower Promotion
pp5  nichdel1.0  Guaranteed Stampage

The authors of these proposals and other interested parties are
reminded that if they wish the proposals distributed this week.
Authors are also reminded to withdraw their proposals if they are no
longer interested. Additionally, if there are any errors in this list,
the Promotor would appreciate them being brought to eir attention.

Re: DIS: Criminal appeals/process reform

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Mine is based on the Roman court system and integrates civil and criminal 
procedures.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Oct 1, 2017, at 6:12 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> Is everyone working on one of these? P.S.S., what are you planning for
> your court reform?
> 
> -Aris
> 
> On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>  wrote:
>> I like these ideas and will try to incorporate them into my upcoming courts 
>> overhaul.
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 1, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> So, CFJ 3563 read as follows:
>>> The Green card o. issued emself in the below message was illegally
>>> issued, as the green card e issued nichdel was legally issued.
>>> and the caller barred Publius Scribonius Scholasticus.
>>> 
>>> This left the Caller, o, nichdel and Publius with conflicts of interest
>>> or being ineligible to be assigned.  A difficulty.  Further, it just
>>> seems to be a miscarriage of justice to lump multiple cards into one
>>> CFJ.
>>> 
>>> I suggest the following criminal process reforms with the following
>>> principles (not rushing to do it this week, this is for discussion):
>>> 
>>> 1.  Only a defendant (the carded) can call a case questioning whether
>>> the card was correct.   E can bar someone of course.
>>> 
>>> 2.  E can do it for free (protecting eir right as per R217, and removing
>>> incentives for bundling cards into one CFJ).
>>> 
>>> 3.  Standards of evidence are specified for this type of case (beyond a
>>> reasonable doubt?  or should it be preponderance of evidence).
>>> 
>>> 4.  Any case questioning a Card that doesn't use this process (e.g.
>>> called by a non-defendant) should be DISMISSED and referred to this
>>> process.
>>> 
>>> The trickiest part is how punishment effects are applied - how to
>>> suspend (or not suspend then) during this process.
>>> 
>>> Thoughts?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Criminal appeals/process reform

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 at 18:13 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is everyone working on one of these?
>

To the best of my knowledge, yes.

Re: DIS: Criminal appeals/process reform

[Aris Merchant]

Is everyone working on one of these? P.S.S., what are you planning for
your court reform?

-Aris

On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> I like these ideas and will try to incorporate them into my upcoming courts 
> overhaul.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>> On Oct 1, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> So, CFJ 3563 read as follows:
>>  The Green card o. issued emself in the below message was illegally
>>  issued, as the green card e issued nichdel was legally issued.
>> and the caller barred Publius Scribonius Scholasticus.
>>
>> This left the Caller, o, nichdel and Publius with conflicts of interest
>> or being ineligible to be assigned.  A difficulty.  Further, it just
>> seems to be a miscarriage of justice to lump multiple cards into one
>> CFJ.
>>
>> I suggest the following criminal process reforms with the following
>> principles (not rushing to do it this week, this is for discussion):
>>
>> 1.  Only a defendant (the carded) can call a case questioning whether
>> the card was correct.   E can bar someone of course.
>>
>> 2.  E can do it for free (protecting eir right as per R217, and removing
>> incentives for bundling cards into one CFJ).
>>
>> 3.  Standards of evidence are specified for this type of case (beyond a
>> reasonable doubt?  or should it be preponderance of evidence).
>>
>> 4.  Any case questioning a Card that doesn't use this process (e.g.
>> called by a non-defendant) should be DISMISSED and referred to this
>> process.
>>
>> The trickiest part is how punishment effects are applied - how to
>> suspend (or not suspend then) during this process.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: DIS: Proto: Crime Improvements

[Alex Smith]

On Sun, 2017-10-01 at 14:11 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> So having just written that, I'm going to change the opinion I started
> this message with.  I think we shouldn't tie it to platonic winning and
> platonic rules-breakages in any way.  We should tie it to actual Cards.

Rests used to block their holders from winning until they were
absolved. We could perhaps do something similar with Cards (e.g. have
each Card block wins for a certain length of time forwards from the
event that caused the Card to be given, including retrospectively).

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Criminal appeals/process reform

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I like these ideas and will try to incorporate them into my upcoming courts 
overhaul.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Oct 1, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> So, CFJ 3563 read as follows:
>  The Green card o. issued emself in the below message was illegally
>  issued, as the green card e issued nichdel was legally issued.
> and the caller barred Publius Scribonius Scholasticus.
> 
> This left the Caller, o, nichdel and Publius with conflicts of interest
> or being ineligible to be assigned.  A difficulty.  Further, it just
> seems to be a miscarriage of justice to lump multiple cards into one
> CFJ.
> 
> I suggest the following criminal process reforms with the following
> principles (not rushing to do it this week, this is for discussion):
> 
> 1.  Only a defendant (the carded) can call a case questioning whether
> the card was correct.   E can bar someone of course.
> 
> 2.  E can do it for free (protecting eir right as per R217, and removing
> incentives for bundling cards into one CFJ).
> 
> 3.  Standards of evidence are specified for this type of case (beyond a
> reasonable doubt?  or should it be preponderance of evidence).
> 
> 4.  Any case questioning a Card that doesn't use this process (e.g.
> called by a non-defendant) should be DISMISSED and referred to this
> process.
> 
> The trickiest part is how punishment effects are applied - how to
> suspend (or not suspend then) during this process.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Proto: Crime Improvements

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >> I'm reluctant to give CFJs more platonic power until I implement
> >> broader judicial reform, which is next on my list after contracts.

Actually, if you've worked on judicial reform could you share a draft?
I've noted (both to myself, and to Discussion) several points of reform
but not drafted anything because of the vague sense "someone else" had
claimed to be working on it.  But if this really hasn't started yet and
is a way down your list, I'd have a go sooner, as some of the issues
are directly impacting Arbitor tasks.

-G.

Re: DIS: Proto: Crime Improvements

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 1 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >> >> As with the other proto, I dislike making subjective platonic 
> >> >> restrictions; this applies especially for wins. I'm definitely
> >> >> not opposed to making illegal wins invalid, but there should be a more 
> >> >> robust mechanism to do so.
> >> >
> >> > Ditto- be specific and not high level about this one.
> >>
> >> Would a requirement that a person announce that a rule was broken
> >> within a week to invalidate the win be sufficient?
> >
> > Sounds about right.  How about attaching it to a CoE-like mechanism?  A CoE/
> > allegation of rule-breaking on a win announcement halts it until resolved
> > (including e.g. suspending Herald's requirement to award Champion), with a
> > standard "if a CFJ finds that a rules breach was significantly and directly
> > required for a win to occur, the win fails, RttC notwithstanding..."
> 
> Current phrasing:
> "If a person would otherwise win the game, but e broke the rules to do so,
>   or another person broke the rules to help em win with eir advance
>   knowledge, and this fact is publicly announced within a week, the win is
>   invalidated. "

Fair enough for not using CFJs.  But you also have to set standards
as winning takes a while and breaking the game can happen in the past.

For example, as written, if I broke a rule 6 months ago to get myself
a ribbon, and no one noticed it and it self-ratified - for how long should 
I be refused a ribbon win?   I think this should primarily apply to the
endgame - if the breach was recent, and directly materially significant
when the endgame happens.

Right now I'm thinking of it as a more over-arching philosophical
question.  We're still acting like a rules-breakage is a "crime".  But
what if we say   Hey, our metaphor is the referee.  This is a Game.  If
the ref calls it, fine, we take away the win.  But if the ref misses it,
or it was in the past, it stands (I mean, you don't unwind the whole
game because an early foul gave a minor positional advantage that led
to a score).

So having just written that, I'm going to change the opinion I started
this message with.  I think we shouldn't tie it to platonic winning and
platonic rules-breakages in any way.  We should tie it to actual Cards.

-G.

Re: DIS: Proto: Crime Improvements

[Aris Merchant]

On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 1:45 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 at 16:42 Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
>>
>> Current phrasing:
>> "If a person would otherwise win the game, but e broke the rules to do so,
>>   or another person broke the rules to help em win with eir advance
>>   knowledge, and this fact is publicly announced within a week, the win is
>>   invalidated. "
>>
>>
>> I'm reluctant to give CFJs more platonic power until I implement
>> broader judicial reform, which is next on my list after contracts.
>> This wording means that there would be some limbo while the CFJ is
>> sorted out, but our current procedures seem capable of handling it. I
>> suppose I could implement some form of temporary suspension, but that
>> sounds rather difficult to phrase correctly, especially without the
>> judicial component.
>
>
> That's better but I think I'm still not a fan.
>>
>>
>> This is already a part of my contracts working draft:
>>
>> "When an action is performed on behalf of a principal, then the
>>   action is considered for all game purposes to have been performed by the
>>   principal, unless another rule specifically states that it is treated
>>   differently, in which case it is treated as described by that rule."
>>
>> I also have this paragraph:
>>
>> "A person SHALL not act on behalf of another person if doing so causes the
>>   second person to violate the rules. A person CANNOT act on behalf of
>> another
>>   person to do anything except perform a game action; in particular, a
>> person
>>   CANNOT act on behalf of another person to send a message, only to
>> perform
>>   specific actions that might be taken within a message."
>>
>> -Aris
>
>
> Rule 2466 already has the former?

Not the "unless another rule" clause, which is needed. Now that I
think about it, it should probably be "a rule".

-Aris

Re: DIS: Proto: Crime Improvements

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 at 16:42 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Current phrasing:
> "If a person would otherwise win the game, but e broke the rules to do so,
>   or another person broke the rules to help em win with eir advance
>   knowledge, and this fact is publicly announced within a week, the win is
>   invalidated. "


> I'm reluctant to give CFJs more platonic power until I implement
> broader judicial reform, which is next on my list after contracts.
> This wording means that there would be some limbo while the CFJ is
> sorted out, but our current procedures seem capable of handling it. I
> suppose I could implement some form of temporary suspension, but that
> sounds rather difficult to phrase correctly, especially without the
> judicial component.
>

That's better but I think I'm still not a fan.

>
> This is already a part of my contracts working draft:
>
> "When an action is performed on behalf of a principal, then the
>   action is considered for all game purposes to have been performed by the
>   principal, unless another rule specifically states that it is treated
>   differently, in which case it is treated as described by that rule."
>
> I also have this paragraph:
>
> "A person SHALL not act on behalf of another person if doing so causes the
>   second person to violate the rules. A person CANNOT act on behalf of
> another
>   person to do anything except perform a game action; in particular, a
> person
>   CANNOT act on behalf of another person to send a message, only to perform
>   specific actions that might be taken within a message."
>
> -Aris
>

Rule 2466 already has the former?

-Alexis

Re: DIS: Proto: Crime Improvements

[Aris Merchant]

On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> >> As with the other proto, I dislike making subjective platonic 
>> >> restrictions; this applies especially for wins. I'm definitely
>> >> not opposed to making illegal wins invalid, but there should be a more 
>> >> robust mechanism to do so.
>> >
>> > Ditto- be specific and not high level about this one.
>>
>> Would a requirement that a person announce that a rule was broken
>> within a week to invalidate the win be sufficient?
>
> Sounds about right.  How about attaching it to a CoE-like mechanism?  A CoE/
> allegation of rule-breaking on a win announcement halts it until resolved
> (including e.g. suspending Herald's requirement to award Champion), with a
> standard "if a CFJ finds that a rules breach was significantly and directly
> required for a win to occur, the win fails, RttC notwithstanding..."

Current phrasing:
"If a person would otherwise win the game, but e broke the rules to do so,
  or another person broke the rules to help em win with eir advance
  knowledge, and this fact is publicly announced within a week, the win is
  invalidated. "

I'm reluctant to give CFJs more platonic power until I implement
broader judicial reform, which is next on my list after contracts.
This wording means that there would be some limbo while the CFJ is
sorted out, but our current procedures seem capable of handling it. I
suppose I could implement some form of temporary suspension, but that
sounds rather difficult to phrase correctly, especially without the
judicial component.

>> >> A person SHALL NOT aid, abet, counsel, command, or induce the 
>> >> violation
>> >> of the rules by another person; when e does so, e commits the 
>> >> Class-3 Crime of
>> >> Conspiracy.
>> >
>> > I dislike this idea enough that I would deregister and spent my time 
>> > explaining how people
>> > should break the rules.  Private discussions (including on whether rules 
>> > breakages are
>> > advised) should never be subject to such penalties.
>> >
>> > Further, it suddenly occurred to me that all speech acts on their own are 
>> > unrestricted,
>> > and therefore we actually can't punish people for them.  CFJ coming up.
>>
>> Calm down, it's just a proto. I'll change it to require "explicit,
>> positive, restricted action". I actually agree about the can't punish
>> people bit.
>
> Don't worry, I'm calm - I'm just saying what my rational reaction to such a
> rule would be.  If it's restricted to public actions, it seems fine.  What's
> *definitely* a good idea is expand it to Agencies - if you make someone else
> break the rules via agency, it should fall on both parties (this requires a 
> bit
> more re-writing, since on-behalf-of right now in R2466 forces us to completely
> ignore the role of the Agent for *all* legal purposes).

This is already a part of my contracts working draft:

"When an action is performed on behalf of a principal, then the
  action is considered for all game purposes to have been performed by the
  principal, unless another rule specifically states that it is treated
  differently, in which case it is treated as described by that rule."

I also have this paragraph:

"A person SHALL not act on behalf of another person if doing so causes the
  second person to violate the rules. A person CANNOT act on behalf of another
  person to do anything except perform a game action; in particular, a person
  CANNOT act on behalf of another person to send a message, only to perform
  specific actions that might be taken within a message."

-Aris

Re: DIS: Proto: Crime Improvements

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >> As with the other proto, I dislike making subjective platonic 
> >> restrictions; this applies especially for wins. I'm definitely
> >> not opposed to making illegal wins invalid, but there should be a more 
> >> robust mechanism to do so.
> >
> > Ditto- be specific and not high level about this one.
> 
> Would a requirement that a person announce that a rule was broken
> within a week to invalidate the win be sufficient?

Sounds about right.  How about attaching it to a CoE-like mechanism?  A CoE/
allegation of rule-breaking on a win announcement halts it until resolved
(including e.g. suspending Herald's requirement to award Champion), with a
standard "if a CFJ finds that a rules breach was significantly and directly
required for a win to occur, the win fails, RttC notwithstanding..."


> >> A person SHALL NOT aid, abet, counsel, command, or induce the 
> >> violation
> >> of the rules by another person; when e does so, e commits the 
> >> Class-3 Crime of
> >> Conspiracy.
> >
> > I dislike this idea enough that I would deregister and spent my time 
> > explaining how people
> > should break the rules.  Private discussions (including on whether rules 
> > breakages are
> > advised) should never be subject to such penalties.
> >
> > Further, it suddenly occurred to me that all speech acts on their own are 
> > unrestricted,
> > and therefore we actually can't punish people for them.  CFJ coming up.
> 
> Calm down, it's just a proto. I'll change it to require "explicit,
> positive, restricted action". I actually agree about the can't punish
> people bit.

Don't worry, I'm calm - I'm just saying what my rational reaction to such a
rule would be.  If it's restricted to public actions, it seems fine.  What's
*definitely* a good idea is expand it to Agencies - if you make someone else
break the rules via agency, it should fall on both parties (this requires a bit
more re-writing, since on-behalf-of right now in R2466 forces us to completely
ignore the role of the Agent for *all* legal purposes).

Re: DIS: Proto: Crime Improvements

[Aris Merchant]

On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 at 03:24 Aris Merchant 
>>  wrote:
>>   Amend Rule 2449, "Winning the Game", by appending
>>
>> "By definition, a person CANNOT win the game if e broke the rules to 
>> do so,
>> or if another person broke the rules to help em win with eir advance
>> knowledge."
>>
>>
>>   as a new paragraph at the end of the rule.
>>
>>
>> As with the other proto, I dislike making subjective platonic restrictions; 
>> this applies especially for wins. I'm definitely
>> not opposed to making illegal wins invalid, but there should be a more 
>> robust mechanism to do so.
>
> Ditto- be specific and not high level about this one.

Would a requirement that a person announce that a rule was broken
within a week to invalidate the win be sufficient?

>>   Amend Rule 2152, "Mother, May I?", by appending ", CRIME" after 
>> "PROHIBITED".
>>
>>   Create a new power 2.0 rule entitled "Conspiracy", with the following 
>> text:
>>
>> A person SHALL NOT aid, abet, counsel, command, or induce the 
>> violation
>> of the rules by another person; when e does so, e commits the 
>> Class-3 Crime of
>> Conspiracy.
>
> I dislike this idea enough that I would deregister and spent my time 
> explaining how people
> should break the rules.  Private discussions (including on whether rules 
> breakages are
> advised) should never be subject to such penalties.
>
> Further, it suddenly occurred to me that all speech acts on their own are 
> unrestricted,
> and therefore we actually can't punish people for them.  CFJ coming up.

Calm down, it's just a proto. I'll change it to require "explicit,
positive, restricted action". I actually agree about the can't punish
people bit.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Draft: Conditionals and Determinacy v2

[Aris Merchant]

On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 at 03:28 Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
>>
>> Create a power 3.0 rule entitled "Conditionals and Determinacy", with the
>> following text:
>>
>>   A conditional is any textual structure that attempts to make a statement
>>   affecting any part or aspect of the gamestate (the substrate), or the
>>   permissibility or possibility of any action affecting such a part or
>> aspect,
>>   dependent on the truth value or other state of a textual structure
>>   (the condition). The condition is said to be "affixed" to the substrate
>>   (inverse "to be conditional upon").
>
>
> Isn't "to be conditional upon" the same as affixation? The condition is
> affixed to the substrate; the condition is conditional upon the substrate.
> So they are synonyms.

No. In the sentence "If I have more than 10 shinies, I transfer 2
shinies to o.", "If I have more than 10 shinies" is a condition
affixed to "I transfer 2 shinies to o", while "I transfer 2 shinies to
o" is conditional upon me having more than 10 shinies.

>>
>>   A condition is inextricable if it is unclear, ambiguous, circular,
>>   inconsistent, paradoxical, depends on information that is impossible or
>>   unreasonably difficult to determine, or otherwise requires an
>> unreasonable
>>   effort resolve; otherwise it is extricable. A conditional is
>> inextricable if
>>   its condition is inextricable; otherwise it is extricable. A player
>> SHOULD NOT
>>   use an inextricable conditional for any purpose.
>>
>>   If a restricted value, or the value of a conditional, or a value
>> otherwise
>>   required to determine the outcome of a restricted action, CANNOT be
>> reasonably
>>   determined (without circularity or paradox) from information reasonably
>>   available, or if it alternates instantaneously and indefinitely between
>>   values, then the value is considered to be indeterminate, otherwise it
>> is
>>   determinate.
>>
>>
>>   If an action would, as part of its effect, make a restricted value
>>   indeterminate, it is void and without effect unless it is explicitly
>> permitted
>>   to do so by a rule; this restriction should be interpreted in accordance
>>   with existing precedent, and this rule defers to judicial discretion and
>>   game custom.
>
>
> I'm worried that if the game state gets into an ambiguous situation, this
> rule just becomes actually harmful as it nullifies all the actions that made
> the gamestate ambiguous, preventing us from picking a resolution and forcing
> us to treat things as if the ambiguity never happened. It gets worse if the
> ambiguity is introduced platonically sometime after the action in question:
> does this retroactively invalidate the original action?
>>
>>
>> Create a power 3.0 rule entitled "Conditional Announcements", with the
>> following
>> text:
>>
>>   A player SHALL NOT deliberately make an action taken by announcement
>>   conditional on an inextricable condition, and any such conditional is
>>   INVALID, and its substrate void and without effect; these restrictions
>> should
>>   be interpreted in accordance with existing precedent, and this rule
>> defers to
>>   judicial discretion and game custom.
>>
>>   Extricable conditionals do not necessarily fail; however, they must be
>>   reasonably resolvable given complete knowledge of the gamestate at the
>> time
>>   the message takes effect. This knowledge CAN require interpretation of
>> data
>>   in non-trivial ways (e.g. interpretation requiring CFJs), but such
>>   interpretation must be achievable without absurd effort. No
>> by-announcement
>>   conditional may ever be conditional upon information which cannot be
>> deduced
>>   from the knowable gamestate at the time the message takes effect, nor
>> can
>>   such conditionals ever change the time the message takes effect.
>>
>>   Loops are generally viable, subject to the above restrictions. However,
>>   long loops used abusively may fail, at the discretion of a judge; the
>>   presumption is in favor of the loop being sucessful.
>
>
> I strongly oppose letting judges discretionarily and retroactively cause
> actions to fail, especially without a stronger procedure in place to define
> what that means (e.g. return to binding CFJs.
>
> I also generally dislike the amount of platonic reliance on things like
> "unreasonable" that we have here. I've heard some arguments defending its
> use in AIAN in order to reduce the scam potential (as that *really* isn't a
> rule that should be scammable), but I don't think it adds value here as it
> adds uncertainty to the gamestate especially, as mentioned, in the absence
> of binding CFJs.
>>
>>
>>   This rule is intended as a codification and clarification of existing
>>   precedent. It does not attempt to overrule existing precedents, but only
>> to
>>   make explicit the principles by which its subject matter is to be
>> understood.
>>
>> 

DIS: Another UTF-8 question (for o or someone else)

[Kerim Aydin]

Could someone look at the index for cases:
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/

And tell me why Ørjan's name displays correctly in CFJ 3565,
but not in CFJ 3470?

Further, if you click through to the pure text version, the 
situation is reversed.

I'm guessing one uses a UTF-8 Ø, but the other uses some form
of extended ASCII?  So one displays in html not text, and the
other is vice versa?  And given that I get these from cutting
and pasting from email, is there any convenient way to tell
other than seeing the mistake or always having a hex editor
open?

DIS: Criminal appeals/process reform

[Kerim Aydin]

So, CFJ 3563 read as follows: 
  The Green card o. issued emself in the below message was illegally
  issued, as the green card e issued nichdel was legally issued.
and the caller barred Publius Scribonius Scholasticus.

This left the Caller, o, nichdel and Publius with conflicts of interest
or being ineligible to be assigned.  A difficulty.  Further, it just
seems to be a miscarriage of justice to lump multiple cards into one
CFJ.  

I suggest the following criminal process reforms with the following
principles (not rushing to do it this week, this is for discussion):

1.  Only a defendant (the carded) can call a case questioning whether 
the card was correct.   E can bar someone of course.  

2.  E can do it for free (protecting eir right as per R217, and removing
incentives for bundling cards into one CFJ).

3.  Standards of evidence are specified for this type of case (beyond a 
reasonable doubt?  or should it be preponderance of evidence).

4.  Any case questioning a Card that doesn't use this process (e.g.
called by a non-defendant) should be DISMISSED and referred to this 
process.

The trickiest part is how punishment effects are applied - how to
suspend (or not suspend then) during this process.

Thoughts?

DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

[Rubin Stacy]

I appear to have been left out of this report. I understand that my message
was not visible to everyone initially, but I still would like to be listed.

This was my message to agora-business. If it is not sufficiently clear and
unambiguous, as per rule 869, I would be happy to send another.

http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg29570.html

--
Trigon
--

On Oct 1, 2017 9:58 AM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> 
>Registrar's Weekly Report
> 
>
> (all times UTC)
>
> Date of last report: 24 Sep 2017
> Date of this report: 01 Oct 2017
>
> Recent events:
>
>
> Players (18) (Rule 869, self-ratifying)
>
> Player   Contact Registered
> --   --- --
> ais523   callforjudgement at yahoo.co.uk [1] 20 Mar 11
> Aris thoughtsoflifeandlight17 at gmail.com   13 Sep 16
> Murphy   emurphy42 at zoho.com   27 Oct 07
> oowen at grimoire.ca 12 Jul 16
> 天火狐draconicdarkness at gmail.com   06 Nov 16
> Quazie   quazienomic at gmail.com15 Apr 17
> P. Scholasticus [2]  pscriboniusscholasticus at gmail.com[3] 16 Apr 17
> Gaelan   gbs at canishe.com  15 May 17
> Ienpw IIIjames.m.beirne at gmail.com 21 May 17
> omd  comexk at gmail.com [4] 03 Feb 11
> Bayushi  thelas.staloras at gmail.com29 Jun 17
> nichdel  nichdel at gmail.com29 Jun 17
> G.   kerim at u.washington.edu   25 Aug 17
> Cuddle Beam  cuddlebeam at gmail.com 25 Aug 17
> V.J. Radavijarada at gmail.com   05 Sep 17
> ATMunn   iamingodsarmy at gmail.com  21 Sep 17
> ProofTechnique   jhenahan at me.com  23 Sep 17
> Alexis   alercah at gmail.com27 Sep 17
>
>
> [1] also ais523 at alumni.bham.ac.uk
> [2] In full, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> [3] officially, but technically equivalent p.scribonius.scholasticus at
> googlemail.com
>
> Fora (Rule 478, self-ratifying)
>
> Type Location  Typical use
>   ---
> Public   agora-official at agoranomic.org  official reports
> Public   agora-business at agoranomic.org  other business
> Discussion   agora-discussion at agoranomic.orgdiscussion
> Discussion   irc://irc.freenode.net:6667/##nomic   discussion
> Public   agora at listserver.tue.nlbackup
>
> Writs of FAGE (Rule 1789)
> PlayerDate
> --
> Kelly 17 Sep 95
> Andre 13 Feb 99
> BobTHJ16 Jan 08
> P1 5 Nov 08
> P2 5 Nov 08
> P3 6 Nov 08
> G.29 Jun 17
>
> Subscribe or unsubscribe from main lists:
> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
>
> Subscribe or unsubscribe from tue.nl backup list:
> http://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora
>
> The IRC channel does not require subscription; set your IRC client to
> server irc.freenode.net, port 6667, channel ##nomic, and whatever
> nickname you like.
>
> Other rules pertaining to this office
> -
> Rule 2139 (The Registrar)
> Rule 1789 (Cantus Cygneus)
>
> Watchers (4)
>
> The list of Watchers is not governed by the rules, but is
> traditionally maintained in the Registrar's Report.  If you'd like to
> be listed as a Watcher or removed from the list, feel free to email
> the fora or the Registrar directly.
>
> Watchers confirmed as of May 2017:
>
> Nickname  Contact
>   ---
> Ørjan oerjan at nvg.ntnu.no
>
> Watchers confirmed as of May 2013:
>
> Nickname  Contact
>   ---
> Dave  davidnicol at gmail.com
> Phlogistique  noe.rubinstein at gmail.com
> Steve zardoz37 at gmail.com
> 
>   Registrar's Weekly Addenda on Switches
> 
> |-|
> Switch  |Value|
> |-|
> Floating|4|
> Value   | |
> |-|
>
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> 

Re: DIS: GitHub Request

[Alexis Hunt]

Ah ok thanks, I'll poke around at it.

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 at 12:17 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> No, you need to enable GitHub Pages, but I would be happy to do that for
> you, fi you don't have time. There is a lot of documentation for it on the
> internet though.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Oct 1, 2017, at 12:08 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks. Is creating a new repository named 'Tailor' enough to make
> /Tailor exist or is there another step?
> >
> > On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 at 11:56 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Done.
> > 
> > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Oct 1, 2017, at 11:48 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> > >
> > > Can someone please add me (github.com/alercah) to the GitHub
> organization so that I can add the Tailor's report?
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> >
>
>

Re: DIS: GitHub Request

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

No, you need to enable GitHub Pages, but I would be happy to do that for you, 
fi you don't have time. There is a lot of documentation for it on the internet 
though.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Oct 1, 2017, at 12:08 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> 
> Thanks. Is creating a new repository named 'Tailor' enough to make /Tailor 
> exist or is there another step?
> 
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 at 11:56 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
> Done.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> > On Oct 1, 2017, at 11:48 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> >
> > Can someone please add me (github.com/alercah) to the GitHub organization 
> > so that I can add the Tailor's report?
> >
> > Thanks!
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Proto: Crime Improvements

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:

> On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 at 03:24 Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
>   Amend Rule 2449, "Winning the Game", by appending
> 
>     "By definition, a person CANNOT win the game if e broke the rules to 
> do so,
>     or if another person broke the rules to help em win with eir advance
>     knowledge."
> 
> 
>   as a new paragraph at the end of the rule.
> 
> 
> As with the other proto, I dislike making subjective platonic restrictions; 
> this applies especially for wins. I'm definitely
> not opposed to making illegal wins invalid, but there should be a more robust 
> mechanism to do so.

Ditto- be specific and not high level about this one.

>   Amend Rule 2152, "Mother, May I?", by appending ", CRIME" after 
> "PROHIBITED".
> 
>   Create a new power 2.0 rule entitled "Conspiracy", with the following 
> text:
> 
>     A person SHALL NOT aid, abet, counsel, command, or induce the 
> violation
>     of the rules by another person; when e does so, e commits the Class-3 
> Crime of
>     Conspiracy.

I dislike this idea enough that I would deregister and spent my time explaining 
how people
should break the rules.  Private discussions (including on whether rules 
breakages are
advised) should never be subject to such penalties.

Further, it suddenly occurred to me that all speech acts on their own are 
unrestricted,
and therefore we actually can't punish people for them.  CFJ coming up.

Re: DIS: Question for the Fearmongor

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> Where are you getting your old rules from? Do you know where to find archives 
> of, say, 2011-era rulesets?
> Thanks!

Zefram's archives (linked through agoranomic page) go from beginning to 2008.  
After 2008 it's just 
browsing the FLRs in the archives of Official to see what catches my eye.

Re: DIS: GitHub Request

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Done.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Oct 1, 2017, at 11:48 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> 
> Can someone please add me (github.com/alercah) to the GitHub organization so 
> that I can add the Tailor's report?
> 
> Thanks!



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

DIS: GitHub Request

[Alexis Hunt]

Can someone please add me (github.com/alercah) to the GitHub organization
so that I can add the Tailor's report?

Thanks!

DIS: Question for the Fearmongor

[Alexis Hunt]

Where are you getting your old rules from? Do you know where to find
archives of, say, 2011-era rulesets?

Thanks!

Re: DIS: Proto: Crime Improvements

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 at 03:24 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Amend Rule 2449, "Winning the Game", by appending
>
>   "By definition, a person CANNOT win the game if e broke the rules to do
> so,
>   or if another person broke the rules to help em win with eir advance
>   knowledge."


> as a new paragraph at the end of the rule.
>

As with the other proto, I dislike making subjective platonic restrictions;
this applies especially for wins. I'm definitely not opposed to making
illegal wins invalid, but there should be a more robust mechanism to do so.


> Amend Rule 2152, "Mother, May I?", by appending ", CRIME" after
> "PROHIBITED".
>
> Create a new power 2.0 rule entitled "Conspiracy", with the following text:
>
>   A person SHALL NOT aid, abet, counsel, command, or induce the violation
>   of the rules by another person; when e does so, e commits the Class-3
> Crime of
>   Conspiracy.
>
> [The Class-3 bit means it's generally fairly minor, and may become more
> useful
> when we reenact a more thorough criminal system.]
>
>   If a person does not personally materially benefit from a rule
> violation, e
>   does not commit Conspiracy by merely knowing about it or the potential
> for it
>   to occur and not reporting it. A person never commits conspiracy if e is
>   the only one participating in the violation.
>
> [Credit to 18 U.S.C. §2 for some of that phrasing. Yes, I know I'm
> conflating
> aiding and abetting with conspiracy, but the difference is unimportant for
> our
> purposes.]
>

My only concern here is that the second paragraph implies that someone who
is not involved and does materially benefit who stays silent is breaking
the rules, but this is not included in the first paragraph. I think that
the "If a person does not personally materially benefit" bit should be
removed so that a player can clearly, say, benefit from the ratification of
an incorrect report that e had no hand in making.

Re: DIS: Draft: Conditionals and Determinacy v2

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 at 03:28 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Create a power 3.0 rule entitled "Conditionals and Determinacy", with the
> following text:
>
>   A conditional is any textual structure that attempts to make a statement
>   affecting any part or aspect of the gamestate (the substrate), or the
>   permissibility or possibility of any action affecting such a part or
> aspect,
>   dependent on the truth value or other state of a textual structure
>   (the condition). The condition is said to be "affixed" to the substrate
>   (inverse "to be conditional upon").
>

Isn't "to be conditional upon" the same as affixation? The condition is
affixed to the substrate; the condition is conditional upon the substrate.
So they are synonyms.


>   A condition is inextricable if it is unclear, ambiguous, circular,
>   inconsistent, paradoxical, depends on information that is impossible or
>   unreasonably difficult to determine, or otherwise requires an
> unreasonable
>   effort resolve; otherwise it is extricable. A conditional is
> inextricable if
>   its condition is inextricable; otherwise it is extricable. A player
> SHOULD NOT
>   use an inextricable conditional for any purpose.
>
>   If a restricted value, or the value of a conditional, or a value
> otherwise
>   required to determine the outcome of a restricted action, CANNOT be
> reasonably
>   determined (without circularity or paradox) from information reasonably
>   available, or if it alternates instantaneously and indefinitely between
>   values, then the value is considered to be indeterminate, otherwise it is
>   determinate.


>   If an action would, as part of its effect, make a restricted value
>   indeterminate, it is void and without effect unless it is explicitly
> permitted
>   to do so by a rule; this restriction should be interpreted in accordance
>   with existing precedent, and this rule defers to judicial discretion and
>   game custom.
>

I'm worried that if the game state gets into an ambiguous situation, this
rule just becomes actually harmful as it nullifies all the actions that
made the gamestate ambiguous, preventing us from picking a resolution and
forcing us to treat things as if the ambiguity never happened. It gets
worse if the ambiguity is introduced platonically sometime after the action
in question: does this retroactively invalidate the original action?

>
> Create a power 3.0 rule entitled "Conditional Announcements", with the
> following
> text:
>
>   A player SHALL NOT deliberately make an action taken by announcement
>   conditional on an inextricable condition, and any such conditional is
>   INVALID, and its substrate void and without effect; these restrictions
> should
>   be interpreted in accordance with existing precedent, and this rule
> defers to
>   judicial discretion and game custom.
>
>   Extricable conditionals do not necessarily fail; however, they must be
>   reasonably resolvable given complete knowledge of the gamestate at the
> time
>   the message takes effect. This knowledge CAN require interpretation of
> data
>   in non-trivial ways (e.g. interpretation requiring CFJs), but such
>   interpretation must be achievable without absurd effort. No
> by-announcement
>   conditional may ever be conditional upon information which cannot be
> deduced
>   from the knowable gamestate at the time the message takes effect, nor can
>   such conditionals ever change the time the message takes effect.
>
>   Loops are generally viable, subject to the above restrictions. However,
>   long loops used abusively may fail, at the discretion of a judge; the
>   presumption is in favor of the loop being sucessful.
>

I strongly oppose letting judges discretionarily and retroactively cause
actions to fail, especially without a stronger procedure in place to define
what that means (e.g. return to binding CFJs.

I also generally dislike the amount of platonic reliance on things like
"unreasonable" that we have here. I've heard some arguments defending its
use in AIAN in order to reduce the scam potential (as that *really* isn't a
rule that should be scammable), but I don't think it adds value here as it
adds uncertainty to the gamestate especially, as mentioned, in the absence
of binding CFJs.

>
>   This rule is intended as a codification and clarification of existing
>   precedent. It does not attempt to overrule existing precedents, but only
> to
>   make explicit the principles by which its subject matter is to be
> understood.
>
> Create a power 3.0 rule entitled "Rational Action", with the following
> text:
>
>   An irrational action is one that is either deliberately hidden from view
>   inside a larger message (e.g. a report) or contains excessive repetitions
>   or complex loops that make the message unreasonably hard to comprehend or
>   respond to. All other actions are rational.
>
>   A player SHALL not take an irrational by announcement action, and any
> such
>   actions fail.
>

Re: DIS: Draft: Conditionals and Determinacy v2

[ATMunn .]

On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 3:27 AM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>   A player SHALL not take an irrational by announcement action, and any
> such
>   actions fail.
>

Shouldn't this be "SHALL NOT" instead of "SHALL not"?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Archival disclosure

[Gaelan Steele]

Hey, I’m not the only one!

Gaelan

> On Sep 30, 2017, at 10:06 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> I'm just a random teenager. 
> 
> On Sunday, October 1, 2017, Gaelan Steele  > wrote:
> Out of curiosity: is anybody around here *not* a programmer of some sort 
> these days?
> 
> Oh, and no language which thinks that `[1, 2] + [3, 4] == "1,23,4”` is 
> working fine.
> 
> Gaelan
> 
> > On Sep 30, 2017, at 7:14 PM, Aris Merchant 
> > > wrote:
> >
> > I've used it, and indeed use it for most of my scripting. JavaScript
> > is a general purpose language, and it works fine for non-web usages.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > > wrote:
> >> I have used Node.JS before and I don't like it because it is using 
> >> javascript for something it isn't supposed to be used for.
> >> 
> >> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com <>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Sep 29, 2017, at 5:29 PM, ATMunn . > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> To be honest, although Python is my favorite language, I really haven't 
> >>> tried many. The only other languages I really know are C# (which I don't 
> >>> really like anymore) and a bit of Lua and Javascript.
> >>>
> >>> I have several friends who really like Javascript, (specifically Node.JS) 
> >>> so that's one I have interest in learning.
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Owen Jacobson > 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  On Sep 28, 2017, at 12:29 PM, Gaelan Steele > wrote:
> 
>  [sits in corner with my Ruby-powered ruleset]
> 
>  Gaelan
> >>>
> >>> I like Ruby. It and Go pay my rent, and they’re interesting languages.
> >>>
> >>> I just happen to like Python more for this specific use case. (I 
> >>> seriously considered writing it in Rust, too.)
> >>>
> >>> However, I’m a big believer in interoperability. The framework I’m using, 
> >>> apistar, automatically generates API docs in HTML form, as well as a 
> >>> coreapi schema document, for APIs implemented against it. The support for 
> >>> including useful prose in those docs is limited, but it’s improving (and 
> >>> I may send the apistar author a few pull requests about that myself, too).
> >>>
> >>> The idea is that the archive is an API-first service, accessible by any 
> >>> language, so that if it’s useful, any Agoran can write tools against it 
> >>> in their languages of choice.
> >>>
> >>> -o
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> From V.J. Rada

DIS: Draft: Conditionals and Determinacy v2

[Aris Merchant]

I've updated this to address G.'s concerns. I'd like to get it into
the distribution after this one, because I consider it a prerequisite
for contracts. Comments appreciated.

-Aris

---
Title: Conditionals and Determinacy v2
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-author(s):

Create a power 3.0 rule entitled "Conditionals and Determinacy", with the
following text:

  A conditional is any textual structure that attempts to make a statement
  affecting any part or aspect of the gamestate (the substrate), or the
  permissibility or possibility of any action affecting such a part or aspect,
  dependent on the truth value or other state of a textual structure
  (the condition). The condition is said to be "affixed" to the substrate
  (inverse "to be conditional upon").

  A condition is inextricable if it is unclear, ambiguous, circular,
  inconsistent, paradoxical, depends on information that is impossible or
  unreasonably difficult to determine, or otherwise requires an unreasonable
  effort resolve; otherwise it is extricable. A conditional is inextricable if
  its condition is inextricable; otherwise it is extricable. A player SHOULD NOT
  use an inextricable conditional for any purpose.

  If a restricted value, or the value of a conditional, or a value otherwise
  required to determine the outcome of a restricted action, CANNOT be reasonably
  determined (without circularity or paradox) from information reasonably
  available, or if it alternates instantaneously and indefinitely between
  values, then the value is considered to be indeterminate, otherwise it is
  determinate.

  If an action would, as part of its effect, make a restricted value
  indeterminate, it is void and without effect unless it is explicitly permitted
  to do so by a rule; this restriction should be interpreted in accordance
  with existing precedent, and this rule defers to judicial discretion and
  game custom.

Create a power 3.0 rule entitled "Conditional Announcements", with the following
text:

  A player SHALL NOT deliberately make an action taken by announcement
  conditional on an inextricable condition, and any such conditional is
  INVALID, and its substrate void and without effect; these restrictions should
  be interpreted in accordance with existing precedent, and this rule defers to
  judicial discretion and game custom.

  Extricable conditionals do not necessarily fail; however, they must be
  reasonably resolvable given complete knowledge of the gamestate at the time
  the message takes effect. This knowledge CAN require interpretation of data
  in non-trivial ways (e.g. interpretation requiring CFJs), but such
  interpretation must be achievable without absurd effort. No by-announcement
  conditional may ever be conditional upon information which cannot be deduced
  from the knowable gamestate at the time the message takes effect, nor can
  such conditionals ever change the time the message takes effect.

  Loops are generally viable, subject to the above restrictions. However,
  long loops used abusively may fail, at the discretion of a judge; the
  presumption is in favor of the loop being sucessful.

  This rule is intended as a codification and clarification of existing
  precedent. It does not attempt to overrule existing precedents, but only to
  make explicit the principles by which its subject matter is to be understood.

Create a power 3.0 rule entitled "Rational Action", with the following text:

  An irrational action is one that is either deliberately hidden from view
  inside a larger message (e.g. a report) or contains excessive repetitions
  or complex loops that make the message unreasonably hard to comprehend or
  respond to. All other actions are rational.

  A player SHALL not take an irrational by announcement action, and any such
  actions fail.

Amend Rule 1023, "Common Definitions", by removing the third item of the
top level list, and renumbering appropriately.

DIS: Proto: Crime Improvements

[Aris Merchant]

This fixes a few problems I've noted with our criminal justice system.
I realize it's likely to be controversial, particularly the conspiracy
portion, but I want to see what people think.

-Aris

---
Title: Crime Improvements
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-authors:


Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and comments in square brackets ("[]")
have no effect on the behavior of this proposal. They are not part of any rules
created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes to
have been removed before its resolution.

Amend Rule 2449, "Winning the Game", by appending

  "By definition, a person CANNOT win the game if e broke the rules to do so,
  or if another person broke the rules to help em win with eir advance
  knowledge."

as a new paragraph at the end of the rule.

Amend Rule 2152, "Mother, May I?", by appending ", CRIME" after "PROHIBITED".

Create a new power 2.0 rule entitled "Conspiracy", with the following text:

  A person SHALL NOT aid, abet, counsel, command, or induce the violation
  of the rules by another person; when e does so, e commits the Class-3 Crime of
  Conspiracy.

[The Class-3 bit means it's generally fairly minor, and may become more useful
when we reenact a more thorough criminal system.]

  If a person does not personally materially benefit from a rule violation, e
  does not commit Conspiracy by merely knowing about it or the potential for it
  to occur and not reporting it. A person never commits conspiracy if e is
  the only one participating in the violation.

[Credit to 18 U.S.C. §2 for some of that phrasing. Yes, I know I'm conflating
aiding and abetting with conspiracy, but the difference is unimportant for our
purposes.]