Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
I'm afraid it's the winter freeze kicking in. It would be nice if we could have a collective agreement (please respond saying you agree) to all come back in January this time, rather than waiting to May. The inactivity is boring. Preferably, we could just keep going through the winter holiday, but I do understand that life get's in the way sometimes. I'll still be running Promotor as best I can, so keep the proposals coming! I'd really like to get the economy reform in by the end of the year, and I have some things of my own in progress (assuming we can meet quorum). -Aris On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 6:22 PM VJ Rada wrote: > I'm sad that we appear to be winding down quite a lot without having > fixed the problems that have vexed us: I understand that part of this > is my distractions' fault. But it's also real life sucking and all > that. Thanks for your service, G> > > On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 12:59 PM, ATMunn wrote: > > Thank you, G., for being willing to do the remaining Arbitor duties > before > > resigning. It's a bummer to see you resign, but I understand that real > life > > exists, and sometimes you don't have time to pay attention to a random > email > > Nomic game. :P > > > > I initiate an election for Arbitor. > > > > > > On 12/8/2017 7:06 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Didn't get enough support, so: I resign the office of Arbitor. > >> > >> A deputy can claim the office by deputising to award appropriate Favours > >> for the below-delivered judgements. > >> > >> Incoming Arbitor: I am not currently "interested" in being assigned > >> judgements. > >> > >> Cheers, all! > >> > >> -G. > >> > >> > >> On Fri, 8 Dec 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >>> > >>> Recently-Delivered Verdicts and Implications > >>> > >>> [** = consider for rules annotation] > >>> > >>> > >>> 3591 by Alexis: Self-Ratification of an Agoran Decision ratifies the > >>> first result only. > >>> > >>> 3599-3601 by o: Details of Rule Change mechanics in proposals (hard to > >>> summarize). > >>> > >>> 3602 by Telnaior: Not all abuses of power for personal gain are > >>> prohibited by law. > >>> > >>> 3607 judged by ATMunn, Motion to Reconsider filed, DIMISSED by G. due > to > >>> questions on calling procedure. > >>> > >>> 3608 by Corona: Proposals not in the Proposal Pool cannot have an > >>> imminence switch. > >>> > >>> 3609 by G.: Conditionals in Proposals have "effects" on the gamestate > >>> even if the net result of the clause is no change. > >>> > >>> 3610 by V.J. Rada: Awarding Ribbons is broken for lack of a "by > >>> announcement" method. > >>> > >>> 3611-12 by Aris: The rule on Black Cards violates the right to call > >>> CFJs, so it never became a rule. > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
I'm sad that we appear to be winding down quite a lot without having fixed the problems that have vexed us: I understand that part of this is my distractions' fault. But it's also real life sucking and all that. Thanks for your service, G> On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 12:59 PM, ATMunn wrote: > Thank you, G., for being willing to do the remaining Arbitor duties before > resigning. It's a bummer to see you resign, but I understand that real life > exists, and sometimes you don't have time to pay attention to a random email > Nomic game. :P > > I initiate an election for Arbitor. > > > On 12/8/2017 7:06 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Didn't get enough support, so: I resign the office of Arbitor. >> >> A deputy can claim the office by deputising to award appropriate Favours >> for the below-delivered judgements. >> >> Incoming Arbitor: I am not currently "interested" in being assigned >> judgements. >> >> Cheers, all! >> >> -G. >> >> >> On Fri, 8 Dec 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> >>> Recently-Delivered Verdicts and Implications >>> >>> [** = consider for rules annotation] >>> >>> >>> 3591 by Alexis: Self-Ratification of an Agoran Decision ratifies the >>> first result only. >>> >>> 3599-3601 by o: Details of Rule Change mechanics in proposals (hard to >>> summarize). >>> >>> 3602 by Telnaior: Not all abuses of power for personal gain are >>> prohibited by law. >>> >>> 3607 judged by ATMunn, Motion to Reconsider filed, DIMISSED by G. due to >>> questions on calling procedure. >>> >>> 3608 by Corona: Proposals not in the Proposal Pool cannot have an >>> imminence switch. >>> >>> 3609 by G.: Conditionals in Proposals have "effects" on the gamestate >>> even if the net result of the clause is no change. >>> >>> 3610 by V.J. Rada: Awarding Ribbons is broken for lack of a "by >>> announcement" method. >>> >>> 3611-12 by Aris: The rule on Black Cards violates the right to call >>> CFJs, so it never became a rule. >> >> >> > -- >From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
I will stand, if no one else wants it. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Dec 8, 2017, at 8:59 PM, ATMunn wrote: > > Thank you, G., for being willing to do the remaining Arbitor duties before > resigning. It's a bummer to see you resign, but I understand that real life > exists, and sometimes you don't have time to pay attention to a random email > Nomic game. :P > > I initiate an election for Arbitor. > > On 12/8/2017 7:06 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> Didn't get enough support, so: I resign the office of Arbitor. >> A deputy can claim the office by deputising to award appropriate Favours >> for the below-delivered judgements. >> Incoming Arbitor: I am not currently "interested" in being assigned >> judgements. >> Cheers, all! >> -G. >> On Fri, 8 Dec 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> Recently-Delivered Verdicts and Implications >>> >>> [** = consider for rules annotation] >>> >>> >>> 3591 by Alexis: Self-Ratification of an Agoran Decision ratifies the >>> first result only. >>> >>> 3599-3601 by o: Details of Rule Change mechanics in proposals (hard to >>> summarize). >>> >>> 3602 by Telnaior: Not all abuses of power for personal gain are >>> prohibited by law. >>> >>> 3607 judged by ATMunn, Motion to Reconsider filed, DIMISSED by G. due to >>> questions on calling procedure. >>> >>> 3608 by Corona: Proposals not in the Proposal Pool cannot have an >>> imminence switch. >>> >>> 3609 by G.: Conditionals in Proposals have "effects" on the gamestate >>> even if the net result of the clause is no change. >>> >>> 3610 by V.J. Rada: Awarding Ribbons is broken for lack of a "by >>> announcement" method. >>> >>> 3611-12 by Aris: The rule on Black Cards violates the right to call >>> CFJs, so it never became a rule. signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3616 assigned to Telnaior
On Sat, 9 Dec 2017, Madeline wrote: > I'm probably not the best choice for this CFJ, given I have somewhat of a > stake in it. I'll judge it if you're sure, but... Honestly I think the Officer is the best initial person to decide if a conditional is too hard for em to resolve. And I think *every* officer has a stake in this one as it governs all officers' expectations. (I didn't make the connection when assigning btw, you were just in the right place in the rotation).
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3616 assigned to Telnaior
I'm probably not the best choice for this CFJ, given I have somewhat of a stake in it. I'll judge it if you're sure, but... On 2017-12-09 10:52, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: I AP-CFJ on the statement: In the message quoted in full below, Corona performed exactly and only the following actions: * Withdrew all eir Shinies from the ACU. * Advised all politicians e had the most influence with. * Deposited all eir Shinies with the ACU. This is CFJ 3616. I assign it to Telnaior. Caller’s evidence: Exhibit 1 consists of Corona’s message, quoted below. Exhibit 2: CFJ 1215 (https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1215): I note that Caller's analogy to the stockbroker also supports this interpretation--while "if and only if we have not already bought shares of this stock in the last day or two, we want to buy X number of shares" would be accepted by the stockbroker, this is only because the stockbroker is generally responsible for knowing whether or not the trader has bought shares recently. A statement such as "if and only if t is standing, we want to buy X number of shares" would be rejected by the stockbroker. It is no officer’s responsibility to know all of the parts of the game state needed to resolve apparently-conditional actions such as --Else, if eir Party is PLA, I spend a number of Shinies equal to the minimum Favor I'd need to Advise em on gaining Favor with PLA, then I pay the minimum Favor I'd need to advise em to Influence em. and the information is not readily discoverable without effort equivalent to compiling those officers’ reports. -o On Nov 26, 2017, at 6:58 PM, Corona wrote: The following 5 paragraphs apply to all actions taken in this message, other text to the contrary notwithstanding: All "if" words used in this message mean "if and only if". Whenever I mention a Post in the context of gaining Influence with it, advising it or other actions that may be performed only on Politicians (and not Posts), I mean the Politician who holds that Post instead. Similarly, if I mention an Echelon in that context, I mean all Politicians in that Echelon. Whenever I gain Influence with a Politician, I attempt to advise em immediately afterwards. If I am already Advising a Politician, I shall not spend any favors to gain Influence with em. - I destroy all Bills in my possession, so that ACU transfers me the appropriate amount of shinies. For each Politician, the maximum Favor I'm willing to pay to Influence em is defined as follows: -Upper Echelon Politicians & Host: 15 Favors each -Loner, Drunk, Mystery, Wild One, Hat Rack: If I am advising the Enforcer, 18 Favors each. Else, 12 Favors each. -Schmoozer, Decorator: 6 Favors each -Row-reduced Echelon: 1 Favor each Also, for each Politician, the minimum Favor I'd need to Advise em is defined as the lowest number of Favors that I can pay to gain Influence with that Politician such that I can Advise the Politician successfully afterwards. Then, for each Politician, in this order: Mad Cap'n Tom, Xi Kingpin, Mad "Max" Robespierre, Joseph "Stealin'" McCarthy, Politician McPoliticianface, Pinocchio, Aristotle, Mickey Joker, Malcolm Turncoat, Nick P. Ronald, John Johnson, The Drunk Clinton, Nikolai Shootemdedsky, Bob, Natasha Nogoodnik, Weird Al, Rob Boss, Cookie Monster, Screaming Lord Sutch, Boris Eatstumuch I perform the following: -If the minimum Favor I'd need to Advise that Politician is higher than the maximum Favor I'm willing to pay to Influence em, I do nothing. -Else: --If I have have enough Favor with eir Party to pay the minimum Favor I'd need to Advise em, I pay the minimum Favor I'd need to advise em to Influence em. --Else, if eir Party is PLA, I spend a number of Shinies equal to the minimum Favor I'd need to Advise em on gaining Favor with PLA, then I pay the minimum Favor I'd need to advise em to Influence em. --Else, multiply the minimum Favor I'd need to Advise that Politician by 3; if it is still lower than the maximum Favor I'm willing to pay to Influence em, spend a number of NPR equal to triple the minimum Favor I'd need to Advise em on gaining Favor with eir Party, then I pay the minimum Favor I'd need to advise em to Influence em. - For good measure: I Advise all politicians with whom I have more Influence than all other players. I transfer all my Shinies to ACU, causing 10 times as many Bills to be created in my possession
DIS: Re: BUS: Raargh!
> On Dec 8, 2017, at 10:20 AM, Edward Murphy wrote: > > I flip my Master switch to myself. > > (Disclaimer: I'm a few months behind on Agora mail, so this may turn out > to be ineffective for reasons unforeseen.) Welcome back! -o signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
DIS: Re: BUS: Raargh!
Yes, this was ineffective—you were deregistered a while back, along with other inactive players. On 12/8/2017 10:20 AM, Edward Murphy wrote: I flip my Master switch to myself. (Disclaimer: I'm a few months behind on Agora mail, so this may turn out to be ineffective for reasons unforeseen.)
