Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour
yea i intentionally used both names all the time to confuse people On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 2:25 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Next time, just try to communicate a bit more clearly. :) > > Notice of Honor: > -1 G. (unclear communication) > +1 omd (serving as our Distributor) > > Now we're both at 0, which seems equitable somehow. > > -Aris > On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 9:14 PM Kerim Aydin > wrote: > > > > > > > > I think we're just interpreting things differently: when a proposal is > > "added back" to the proposal pool, you give it the priority of its > original > > number, while I was assuming that if other proposals were added to the > > pool in the mean time, those should have priority. > > > > In this case, it turned out that your ordering happened to favor > proposals > > you were keen on, that I didn't want to pass. > > > > Where this matters: I thought about resubmitting a "Coins->Points" > > name change proposal that could take effect before the "coin reduction" > > proposals, thus rendering them ineffective. But if those quorum-failing > > proposals always jump the queue, that removes this strategy. > > > > Anyway: I almost added that we haven't had a good "karma storm" (lots > > of people sniping each others' karma) in a long time. It's a good way > > to blow off steam (and smooth things over :) ) without really damaging > > anyone - though the zombies doing karma really amplifies it I guess! > > I'm cool (even if you do another round of karma on me :P ). > > > > > > On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > To the public forum: > > > > > > I haven’t reordered proposals to favor one over another any time I can > > > remember. If I have done so recently (in the last few months), please > point > > > it out, and I pledge that I will state, publicly, whether or not the > > > reordering was an attempt at deliberate manipulation. I make every > effort > > > to be scrupulously fair with my actions in the office of the Promotor. > I’ve > > > done a few pranks (that thing with Cuddlebeam last year comes to > mind), but > > > nothing I didn’t consider ethical. On every occasion upon which I have > been > > > offered a bribe to distribute proposals in a certain way, I have > refused > > > it. I’m trying very hard not to take personal offense at that > allegation, > > > given that this is a game and we appear to only be having a > > > misunderstanding. > > > > > > I believe that if a proposal fails quorum, it should be voted upon > again, > > > so that the people of Agora can state their views on it. I have > attempted > > > to make that possible. If you disagree, that’s your right, but I’m only > > > trying to be helpful. If you believe that the attempts at lowering > quorum > > > are inadvisable, that is a disagreement best worked out through the > > > proposal process. > > > > > > With hope that we can smooth this over, > > > Aris > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 8:40 PM Kerim Aydin > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > > > -1 G. (complaining about proposals being readded while resisting > any > > > > > attempt to lower quorum or otherwise resolve the problem of them > failing > > > > > quorum) > > > > > > > > Quorum is working as intended. The only "problem" is that some > people > > > > don't accept a result as a result, to the point that they are using > their > > > > Office in self-interest by distributing proposals out of the order > that > > > > they were placed in the pool, to favor proposals that they like. > > > > > > > > Might as well jump in though. > > > > > > > > Notice of Honour: > > > > -1 Aris (because really, I feel like it). > > > > +1 CuddleBeam (because I'm tired of seeing that name at the bottom). > > > > > > > > > > > > On behalf of Gaelan, I publish this following Notice of Honour: > > > > > > > > Notice of Honour > > > > -1 Aris (because Gaelan may or may not feel like it). > > > > +1 V.J. (or VJ) Rada, because eir name is confusing enough to be > > > > listed in two different ways within the Registrar's Report, and > > > > I like that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- >From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour
I think we're just interpreting things differently: when a proposal is "added back" to the proposal pool, you give it the priority of its original number, while I was assuming that if other proposals were added to the pool in the mean time, those should have priority. In this case, it turned out that your ordering happened to favor proposals you were keen on, that I didn't want to pass. Where this matters: I thought about resubmitting a "Coins->Points" name change proposal that could take effect before the "coin reduction" proposals, thus rendering them ineffective. But if those quorum-failing proposals always jump the queue, that removes this strategy. Anyway: I almost added that we haven't had a good "karma storm" (lots of people sniping each others' karma) in a long time. It's a good way to blow off steam (and smooth things over :) ) without really damaging anyone - though the zombies doing karma really amplifies it I guess! I'm cool (even if you do another round of karma on me :P ). On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > To the public forum: > > I haven’t reordered proposals to favor one over another any time I can > remember. If I have done so recently (in the last few months), please point > it out, and I pledge that I will state, publicly, whether or not the > reordering was an attempt at deliberate manipulation. I make every effort > to be scrupulously fair with my actions in the office of the Promotor. I’ve > done a few pranks (that thing with Cuddlebeam last year comes to mind), but > nothing I didn’t consider ethical. On every occasion upon which I have been > offered a bribe to distribute proposals in a certain way, I have refused > it. I’m trying very hard not to take personal offense at that allegation, > given that this is a game and we appear to only be having a > misunderstanding. > > I believe that if a proposal fails quorum, it should be voted upon again, > so that the people of Agora can state their views on it. I have attempted > to make that possible. If you disagree, that’s your right, but I’m only > trying to be helpful. If you believe that the attempts at lowering quorum > are inadvisable, that is a disagreement best worked out through the > proposal process. > > With hope that we can smooth this over, > Aris > > > On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 8:40 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > -1 G. (complaining about proposals being readded while resisting any > > > attempt to lower quorum or otherwise resolve the problem of them failing > > > quorum) > > > > Quorum is working as intended. The only "problem" is that some people > > don't accept a result as a result, to the point that they are using their > > Office in self-interest by distributing proposals out of the order that > > they were placed in the pool, to favor proposals that they like. > > > > Might as well jump in though. > > > > Notice of Honour: > > -1 Aris (because really, I feel like it). > > +1 CuddleBeam (because I'm tired of seeing that name at the bottom). > > > > > > On behalf of Gaelan, I publish this following Notice of Honour: > > > > Notice of Honour > > -1 Aris (because Gaelan may or may not feel like it). > > +1 V.J. (or VJ) Rada, because eir name is confusing enough to be > > listed in two different ways within the Registrar's Report, and > > I like that. > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Define Reiteration
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > I object. You’ve just stated that you have a strong personal opinion. Whether or not I judge this, I'm open to discussion and changing my first impression. (Obviously I can't make you not object, but using "expressing an opinion" as a reason suppresses dialog - would it have been better if I'd just favored it while keeping quiet about my current leanings? "Having an opinion" is not the same thing as being self-interested or otherwise incapable of a fair judgement). Anyway, some discussion... > Additionally, I found that CFJ. It’s CFJ 1214. It states pretty strongly > that this kind of thing was allowed at the time, although admittedly that > depends on details of how Orders worked under those rules. I'll counter with 2 CFJs: - CFJ 1307, which found that when things must be "specified", using references like "all" or other indirections does not sufficiently "specify". Obviously we've let that one slip (a lot) such that custom has superseded that precedent, but it's still a precedent. - CFJ 3659, with a more stringent interpretation of "clearly" than we've had in the past, noting R683 uses "clearly" for ballots. And for this question: > How is this different legally from the conditional vote “FOR if I voted FOR > last time, AGAINST if I voted against, otherwise PRESENT”? What legal > reasoning makes that kind of vote illegal when similar votes are not > illegal? Rule 2517 says that conditionals can't be "unreasonably difficult" to determine. That's the legal reasoning. The question is, where does that line lie? In CFJ 1460, Judge Maud gives of "unreasonable effort" that's along the lines of your idea: > I cast a number of votes for proposal "Zig-Zag Lemma" equal to the > number of times since 1996 that Michael and Kelly have voted with > equal strength on a proposal using at least five but not more than > forty of the words in a proposal from 1995. Now, Judge Maud here chose an example that was exaggeratedly unreasonable to make a point, but it's along the same lines. The question is, where is that line drawn? Let me say I'm not certain: I'm currently *skeptical* that your clause is reasonable, but I'm willing to consider carefully before trying to draw that line.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8096-8103
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 8:28 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Mon, 24 Sep 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > > On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > > > I vote, and act on behalf as Tenaior to vote, as follows: > > > > Not that it matters, but it's "Telnaior". > > It matters if people are claiming that D. Margaux and D Margaux are > somehow different That argument doesn’t make very much sense though. Names have no official status, so they should be treated the same as all other words. -Aris > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8096-8103
Heh. This sure is a Pandora's Box I've opened up. On Sep 23, 2018 21:28, "Kerim Aydin" wrote: On Mon, 24 Sep 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > I vote, and act on behalf as Tenaior to vote, as follows: > > Not that it matters, but it's "Telnaior". It matters if people are claiming that D. Margaux and D Margaux are somehow different
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8096-8103
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > I vote, and act on behalf as Tenaior to vote, as follows: > > Not that it matters, but it's "Telnaior". It matters if people are claiming that D. Margaux and D Margaux are somehow different
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > 2. In R2510, clause (2) and clause (3) somehow got reversed, in that the > > "other" in clause (2) is meant to refer to the fact that it can't be the > > same entity as in clause (3). Does the "other" mean anything with that > > reversal? > > Um no, it's meant to refer to the fact it cannot be the publishing player > emself. Sorry, silly me.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: 2. In R2510, clause (2) and clause (3) somehow got reversed, in that the "other" in clause (2) is meant to refer to the fact that it can't be the same entity as in clause (3). Does the "other" mean anything with that reversal? Um no, it's meant to refer to the fact it cannot be the publishing player emself. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: Define Reiteration
I will challenge/CoE the counting of any vote done in this matter. It is wholly unreasonable (beyond the bounds of clarity) to require persons to look back at past decisions to see what vote was cast. (public voting should communicate not just with the assessor, but with everyone). On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > TL;DR: To reiterate your vote on a proposal means to vote and have > your zombie vote the same way you did last time the voting on the > proposal was open. > > As a general definition, let "I reiterate my vote on X", where X is a > proposal such that the voting period of an Agoran Decision on the > subject of whether to adopt X is currently open and that an Agoran > Decision on the subject of whether to adopt X has previously been > resolved, be defined as meaning "I unconditionally vote, and act on > behalf of each zombie that I own to unconditionally vote, the same on > the Agoran Decision on the subject of whether to adopt X as I did the > last time I voted on an Agoran Decision on the subject whether to > adopt X, or PRESENT if I have never before voted on an Agoan Decision > on the subject of whether to adopt X". > > This message is not part of a scam. > > [This is an informal general definition that is helpful for proposals > added again to the pool. The Assessor already has this information, > which means that it's legal under past precedent to cast a vote that > requires em to retrieve it.] > > -Aris >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour
Two gratuitous arguments: 1. CFJ 3657 found that the +1 and -1 are simultaneous: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-September/039083.html 2. In R2510, clause (2) and clause (3) somehow got reversed, in that the "other" in clause (2) is meant to refer to the fact that it can't be the same entity as in clause (3). Does the "other" mean anything with that reversal? On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote: > I favor this CFJ. I suppose I am an interested party, but the general > principle is more important than its application in this particular Notice > of Honour. > > On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 4:03 PM Reuben Staley > wrote: > > > PF > > > > On Sun, Sep 23, 2018, 14:02 Reuben Staley wrote: > > > > > I submit this notice of honor: > > > > > > -1 to D. Margaux for being a manipulator > > > +1 to D Margaux for helping debug zombie rules > > > > > > I call a CFJ: This Notice of Honour causes a player's karma to change by > > > exactly one and then change back. > > > > > > Arguments: In standard English, initials can be spelled with periods and > > > spaces between them, with only periods, with only spaces, or with > > nothing. > > > For example: > > > > > > J. R. R. Tolkien > > > J.R.R. Tolkien > > > J R R Tolkien > > > JRR Tolkien > > > > > > All four aforementioned names refer to the same person, John Ronald Reuel > > > Tolkien. Since all players are persons, it follows that initials should > > be > > > accepted using any method of separation. > > > > > > Therefore, "D. Margaux" and "D Margaux" refer to the same person, a > > person > > > who registered during April of this year. > > > > > > This ends my arguments for a frivolous CFJ. I probably did something > > wrong. > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 23, 2018, 13:26 Aris Merchant < > > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I act on behalf of Tenaior to publish the following notice of honor: > > > > > > > > -1 D Margaux (manipulating zombies to gain honor) > > > > +1 nichdel (being mainipulated) > > > > > > > > I publish the following notice of honor, which I was about to publish > > > > anyway: > > > > -1 G. (complaining about proposals being readded while resisting any > > > > attempt to lower quorum or otherwise resolve the problem of them > > failing > > > > quorum) > > > > +1 D Margaux (helping fix problems by debugging the proposals) > > > > > > > > -Aris > > > > On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 12:16 PM D Margaux > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I cause nichdel to issue this Notice of Honour: > > > > > > > > > > -1 nichdel (having the misfortune of being D. Margaux’s zombie) > > > > > +1 D Margaux (for revealing what might be yet another zombie exploit) > > > > > -- > > > > > D. Margaux > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour
CFJ 1361 ("Beverly") is quite relevant here.
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-09-23 at 14:02 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > Therefore, "D. Margaux" and "D Margaux" refer to the same person, a
> > person who registered during April of this year.
> >
> > This ends my arguments for a frivolous CFJ. I probably did something
> > wrong.
>
> Our precedent is basically that player names aren't a "tracked" thing,
> rather we simply identify players by whichever means is most
> convenient. (It should in theory be possible to change how someone else
> is named on the Registrar report if everyone persistently calls them by
> a particular name.) As such, any unambiguous attempt to name someone is
> likely to work, regardless of what the spelling is.
>
> (There was a period of Agoran history where we had a player named
> "Wooble" and a player named "woggle", and occasionally people got
> confused and ended up producing a name somewhere in between. I can't
> remember for certain how that worked out, but I'd expect it to be "as
> long as it's clear who's the poster was trying to name, it works". This
> situation is much less ambiguous.)
>
> --
> ais523
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Define Reiteration
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 6:00 PM Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: [This is an informal general definition that is helpful for proposals added again to the pool. The Assessor already has this information, which means that it's legal under past precedent to cast a vote that requires em to retrieve it.] The obvious question is why e should be required to keep the information in the definition message. Greetings, Ørjan. This is intended to work the same way TTttPF works, by becoming a part of the Agoran dialect. This formal definition is merely supposed to enter the information into our collective consciousness. I don't think that works when "I reiterate my votes" has an obvious natural meaning that _isn't_ what you want. "On behalf of myself and my Zombie, I reiterate our votes." should work, and then you can shorten it to ObomamZ after people get used to it. :P Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Define Reiteration
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 6:00 PM Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > [This is an informal general definition that is helpful for proposals > > added again to the pool. The Assessor already has this information, > > which means that it's legal under past precedent to cast a vote that > > requires em to retrieve it.] > > The obvious question is why e should be required to keep the information > in the definition message. > > Greetings, > Ørjan. > This is intended to work the same way TTttPF works, by becoming a part of the Agoran dialect. This formal definition is merely supposed to enter the information into our collective consciousness. -Aris
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8096-8103
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: I vote, and act on behalf as Tenaior to vote, as follows: Not that it matters, but it's "Telnaior". Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: Define Reiteration
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: [This is an informal general definition that is helpful for proposals added again to the pool. The Assessor already has this information, which means that it's legal under past precedent to cast a vote that requires em to retrieve it.] The obvious question is why e should be required to keep the information in the definition message. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Edward Murphy wrote: Open cases (CFJs) - 3645 called by Aris 20 June 2018, assigned to V.J. Rada 26 August 2018: "G. has satisfied eir weekly obligation with regard to the FLR and SLR." 3648 called by G. 24 June 2018, assigned to V.J. Rada 26 August 2018: "The fine levied on Corona for late Herald Tournament Regulations is unforgivable for the purposes of R2559." 3652 called by G. 20 July 2018, assigned to Corona 26 August 2018: "If a person pays the (nonzero) upkeep cost for eir Rank 1 facility and then upgrades it to Rank 2 in the same month, e must pay the full Rank 2 upkeep cost to prevent its end-of-the-month destruction." Assuming your report is otherwise correct, I believe you're way over the rule 591 time limit for removing these judges. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour
On Sun, 2018-09-23 at 13:45 -0700, Edward Murphy wrote: > This is CFJ 3662. I assign it to D. Margaux. Doesn't this assignment have the same (alleged) ambiguity in it as the event that's the subject of the CFJ? -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour
On Sun, 2018-09-23 at 16:09 -0400, D Margaux wrote: > I favor this CFJ. I suppose I am an interested party, but the general > principle is more important than its application in this particular > Notice of Honour. I don't think there's a conflict of interest. Either it's valid and your honour doesn't change, or it's invalid and your honour doesn't change. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour
I favor this CFJ. I suppose I am an interested party, but the general principle is more important than its application in this particular Notice of Honour. On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 4:03 PM Reuben Staley wrote: > PF > > On Sun, Sep 23, 2018, 14:02 Reuben Staley wrote: > > > I submit this notice of honor: > > > > -1 to D. Margaux for being a manipulator > > +1 to D Margaux for helping debug zombie rules > > > > I call a CFJ: This Notice of Honour causes a player's karma to change by > > exactly one and then change back. > > > > Arguments: In standard English, initials can be spelled with periods and > > spaces between them, with only periods, with only spaces, or with > nothing. > > For example: > > > > J. R. R. Tolkien > > J.R.R. Tolkien > > J R R Tolkien > > JRR Tolkien > > > > All four aforementioned names refer to the same person, John Ronald Reuel > > Tolkien. Since all players are persons, it follows that initials should > be > > accepted using any method of separation. > > > > Therefore, "D. Margaux" and "D Margaux" refer to the same person, a > person > > who registered during April of this year. > > > > This ends my arguments for a frivolous CFJ. I probably did something > wrong. > > > > On Sun, Sep 23, 2018, 13:26 Aris Merchant < > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I act on behalf of Tenaior to publish the following notice of honor: > > > > > > -1 D Margaux (manipulating zombies to gain honor) > > > +1 nichdel (being mainipulated) > > > > > > I publish the following notice of honor, which I was about to publish > > > anyway: > > > -1 G. (complaining about proposals being readded while resisting any > > > attempt to lower quorum or otherwise resolve the problem of them > failing > > > quorum) > > > +1 D Margaux (helping fix problems by debugging the proposals) > > > > > > -Aris > > > On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 12:16 PM D Margaux > > wrote: > > > > > > > I cause nichdel to issue this Notice of Honour: > > > > > > > > -1 nichdel (having the misfortune of being D. Margaux’s zombie) > > > > +1 D Margaux (for revealing what might be yet another zombie exploit) > > > > -- > > > > D. Margaux > > > > > > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour
On Sun, 2018-09-23 at 14:02 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote: > Therefore, "D. Margaux" and "D Margaux" refer to the same person, a > person who registered during April of this year. > > This ends my arguments for a frivolous CFJ. I probably did something > wrong. Our precedent is basically that player names aren't a "tracked" thing, rather we simply identify players by whichever means is most convenient. (It should in theory be possible to change how someone else is named on the Registrar report if everyone persistently calls them by a particular name.) As such, any unambiguous attempt to name someone is likely to work, regardless of what the spelling is. (There was a period of Agoran history where we had a player named "Wooble" and a player named "woggle", and occasionally people got confused and ended up producing a name somewhere in between. I can't remember for certain how that worked out, but I'd expect it to be "as long as it's clear who's the poster was trying to name, it works". This situation is much less ambiguous.) -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour
I submit this notice of honor: -1 to D. Margaux for being a manipulator +1 to D Margaux for helping debug zombie rules I call a CFJ: This Notice of Honour causes a player's karma to change by exactly one and then change back. Arguments: In standard English, initials can be spelled with periods and spaces between them, with only periods, with only spaces, or with nothing. For example: J. R. R. Tolkien J.R.R. Tolkien J R R Tolkien JRR Tolkien All four aforementioned names refer to the same person, John Ronald Reuel Tolkien. Since all players are persons, it follows that initials should be accepted using any method of separation. Therefore, "D. Margaux" and "D Margaux" refer to the same person, a person who registered during April of this year. This ends my arguments for a frivolous CFJ. I probably did something wrong. On Sun, Sep 23, 2018, 13:26 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I act on behalf of Tenaior to publish the following notice of honor: > > -1 D Margaux (manipulating zombies to gain honor) > +1 nichdel (being mainipulated) > > I publish the following notice of honor, which I was about to publish > anyway: > -1 G. (complaining about proposals being readded while resisting any > attempt to lower quorum or otherwise resolve the problem of them failing > quorum) > +1 D Margaux (helping fix problems by debugging the proposals) > > -Aris > On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 12:16 PM D Margaux wrote: > > > I cause nichdel to issue this Notice of Honour: > > > > -1 nichdel (having the misfortune of being D. Margaux’s zombie) > > +1 D Margaux (for revealing what might be yet another zombie exploit) > > -- > > D. Margaux > > >
Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft A
Huh. I agree that our usual Agoran method of interpretation would be (most likely) to treat this literally (i.e. broken). On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote: > I noticed an issue with the Points proposal. > > >> For a player to 'lose' a point is for it to be destroyed (if e has one). > > There’s a possible bug here. It should say “if e has any,” otherwise (taken > literally) a player can lose points only when e has a single point left > (“one”). > > > On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 2:38 AM Aris Merchant < > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > This is the draft for all of the old proposals that have been re-added > > after they failed quorum. Comments and corrections are, as always, > > appreciated. > > > > -Aris
Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft A
I noticed an issue with the Points proposal. >> For a player to 'lose' a point is for it to be destroyed (if e has one). There’s a possible bug here. It should say “if e has any,” otherwise (taken literally) a player can lose points only when e has a single point left (“one”). On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 2:38 AM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is the draft for all of the old proposals that have been re-added > after they failed quorum. Comments and corrections are, as always, > appreciated. > > -Aris > > --- > > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran > Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal > pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the > quorum is 6.0, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid > options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are > conditional votes). > > ID Author(s) AITitle > --- > 8077B* twg 3.0 Patchy McPatchface > 8078B* twg 2.0 From each according to eir means > 8079B* twg 2.0 From each according to eir means v2 > 8080B* Aris, twg 2.0 From each according to eir means v3 > 8081B* Aris, G., twg 3.0 Point Installation Act v2 > 8082A* twg 1.0 Gamestate correction for July 2018 > 8083A* G. 3.0 quorum fixes > 8084A* Trigon 1.0 Needs more Competition > 8085A* Kenyon, twg 1.0 Plain Old Bribery, Mk. II > 8087A* Aris1.0 Even Freer Proposals v2 > 8088A* Kenyon, twg 1.0 Return of the Zombie Loopholes > 8089A* Trigon, [1] 1.0 Revamping movement v3.2 > > > [1] twg, Aris, G., Corona > > Legend: * : Proposal is pending. > + : By publishing this report, I pend the marked proposal. > A : Distribution identifier for a second distribution. > B : Distribution identifier for a third distribution. > > > The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below. > > // > ID: 8077 > Title: Patchy McPatchface > Adoption index: 3.0 > Author: twg > Co-author(s): > > > Amend rule 478, "Fora", by replacing "may change" with "CAN change". > > Amend rule 1789, "Cantus Cygneus", by replacing every occurrence of > "shall" with "SHALL". > > // > ID: 8078 > Title: From each according to eir means > Adoption index: 2.0 > Author: twg > Co-author(s): > > > [ This is an attempt at a reset/rebalance that strikes a middle ground > between > completely erasing everyone's progress and leaving the current > exponentially- > growing inequality in place. I'm not positive that I struck the right > balance > but even if it's rejected it can be a starting point for discussion. ] > > For each facility owned by a player, transfer all coins owned by that > facility > to its owner. > > For each zombie owned by a player, transfer all coins owned by that zombie > to > its owner. > > Decrease the coin balance of each player to the square root (rounded up to > the > next largest integer) of however many coins e possessed before this > sentence > took effect. > > // > ID: 8079 > Title: From each according to eir means v2 > Adoption index: 2.0 > Author: twg > Co-author(s): > > > [An alternative algorithm which may be slightly preferable: Quarter > the coin balances instead of square-rooting them.] > > If the votes on the proposal titled "From each according to eir > means" authored by twg are such that it has been or will undoubtedly > be ADOPTED, then this proposal has no effect. > > For each facility owned by a player, transfer all coins owned by that > facility to its owner. > > For each zombie owned by a player, transfer all coins owned by that > zombie to its owner. > > Decrease the coin balance of each player to one-quarter (rounded up to > the next largest integer) of however many coins e possessed before > this sentence took effect. > > // > ID: 8080 > Title: From each according to eir means v3 > Adoption index: 2.0 > Author: Aris > Co-author(s): twg > > > If the votes on any proposal, the title of which contains "From each", > authored by twg, are such that it has been or will undoubtedly > be ADOPTED, then this proposal has no effect. > > For each facility owned by a player, transfer all coins owned by that > facility to its owner. > > For each zombie owned by a player, transfer all coins owned by that > zombie to its owner. > > Decrease the coin balance of each player to one-tenth (rounded up to > the next largest integer) of however many coins e possessed before > this sentence took effect. > > // > ID: 8081 >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: argument-free judgement for CFJ 3658
yes On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > You do realize that, legally, the arguments aren't really part of the > judgement? > > -Aris > On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 12:01 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > I (self-) file a motion to reconsider CFJ 3568. -G. > > > > > > On Sun, 16 Sep 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > [ > > > I got bogged down on this and wrote some long arguments that cover lots of > > > ways of calling CoEs. They're not finished but I'm running late on it. > > > > > > So here's something very simple, I plan to motion for reconsideration and > > > add full arguments (with the same result) in the next couple days. > > > ] > > > > > > > > > > 3658 called by twg 27 August 2018, assigned to G. 9 September 2018: "The > > > > Treasuror's report of August 27, 2018, or a portion thereof, is > > > > doubted." > > > > > > > > > Judgement for 3658: > > > > > > TRUE. Specifically, G.'s CoE, quoted in the evidence for that case, > > > cast legal doubt on EXACTLY ONE PORTION of the Treasuror's Report dated > > > Aug 27 16:59:04 UTC 2018 - the portion that was a list of all instances > > > of Indulgences (the Indulgence column). No other section of the Report > > > was doubted. > > > > > > [The longer judgement will deal with the ambiguity in past CoEs that might > > > arise from the above finding, as pointed out by Caller twg. spoiler - not > > > much of a problem I think.] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
DIS: Proto-document: Definine Reiteration
This message has no effect whatsoever until I send it to the public forum. --- TL;DR: To reiterate your vote on a proposal means to vote and have your zombie vote the same way you did last time the voting on the proposal was open. As a general definition, let "I reiterate my vote on X", where X is a proposal such that the voting period of an Agoran Decision on the subject of whether to adopt X is currently open and that an Agoran Decision on the subject of whether to adopt X has previously been resolved, be defined as meaning "I unconditionally vote, and act on behalf of each zombie that I own to unconditionally vote, the same on the Agoran Decision on the subject of whether to adopt X as I did the last time I voted on an Agoran Decision on the subject whether to adopt X, or PRESENT if I have never before voted on an Agoan Decision on the subject of whether to adopt X". This message is not part of a scam. [This is an informal general definition that is helpful for proposals added again to the pool. The Assessor already has this information, which means that it's legal under past precedent to cast a vote that requires em to retrieve it.] --- Does this look good to everyone? -Aris
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: argument-free judgement for CFJ 3658
You do realize that, legally, the arguments aren't really part of the judgement? -Aris On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 12:01 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > I (self-) file a motion to reconsider CFJ 3568. -G. > > > On Sun, 16 Sep 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > [ > > I got bogged down on this and wrote some long arguments that cover lots of > > ways of calling CoEs. They're not finished but I'm running late on it. > > > > So here's something very simple, I plan to motion for reconsideration and > > add full arguments (with the same result) in the next couple days. > > ] > > > > > > > 3658 called by twg 27 August 2018, assigned to G. 9 September 2018: "The > > > Treasuror's report of August 27, 2018, or a portion thereof, is > > > doubted." > > > > > > Judgement for 3658: > > > > TRUE. Specifically, G.'s CoE, quoted in the evidence for that case, > > cast legal doubt on EXACTLY ONE PORTION of the Treasuror's Report dated > > Aug 27 16:59:04 UTC 2018 - the portion that was a list of all instances > > of Indulgences (the Indulgence column). No other section of the Report > > was doubted. > > > > [The longer judgement will deal with the ambiguity in past CoEs that might > > arise from the above finding, as pointed out by Caller twg. spoiler - not > > much of a problem I think.] > > > > > > > > >
DIS: [Promotor] Draft B
This is the draft for all new proposals. Comments and corrections are, as always, appreciated. -Aris --- I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the quorum is 6.0, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are conditional votes). ID Author(s)AITitle --- 8096* twg, D. Margaux 2.0 PTPMFUBGOFTDAODWTVOAWIC [1] 8097* G. 1.0 Left||Right 8098* G. 3.0 Zombie Overstock 8099* Aris 1.5 Patent Petitions 8100* D. Margaux, [2] 1.0 Slate A to Win (v2.1) 8101* D. Margaux, [2] 1.0 Slate B to Win (v2.1) 8102+ D. Margaux, [2] 1.0 Slate C to Win (v2.1) The proposal pool is currently empty. [1] Protect The Prime Minister From Unfairly Being Guilty Of Failing To Discharge An Official Duty When The Validity Of A Win Is Contested [2] Aris, G., ais523 Legend: * : Proposal is pending. + : By publishing this report, I pend the marked proposal. The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below. // ID: 8096 Title: Protect The Prime Minister From Unfairly Being Guilty Of Failing To Discharge An Official Duty When The Validity Of A Win Is Contested Adoption index: 2.0 Author: twg Co-authors: D. Margaux Amend Rule 103, "The Speaker", by changing the second paragraph to: The player or players who have most recently been awarded the Patent Title Champion are called Laureled. If at any time the office of Speaker is vacant, or when one or more players are awarded the Patent Title Champion, then the Prime Minister CAN and and SHALL, once and in a timely fashion, appoint a Laureled player to the office of Speaker by announcement. // ID: 8097 Title: Left||Right Adoption index: 1.0 Author: G. Co-authors: In this proposal, any text to the || In this proposal, any text to the right of double pipe marks are || left of double pipe marks are comments with no effect.|| comments with no effect. || The following players win the game: || The following players win the game: Corona || Publius Scribonius Scholasticus Cuddle Beam|| VJ Rada Trigon || Murphy G. || omd Aris || twg ATMunn || D. Margaux // ID: 8098 Title: Zombie Overstock Adoption index: 3.0 Author: G. Co-authors: Amend Rule 2574 (Zombie Life Cycle) by appending the following sentence to the 2nd paragraph: At the end of a zombie auction, every zombie that is an excess lot in that auction has eir resale value decreased by 1. // ID: 8099 Title: Patent Petitions Adoption index: 1.5 Author: Aris Co-authors: Amend Rule 649, "Patent Titles", by appending "If a player publicly petitions that the Herald award a patent title to another player for a specified reason, the Herald SHALL respond in a timely fashion by either attempting to grant an appropriate patent title or explaining publicly why no patent title is warranted." as a new paragraph at the end of the rule. // ID: 8100 Title: Slate A to Win (v2.1) Adoption index: 1.0 Author: D. Margaux Co-authors: Aris, G., ais523 1. If there is no Rule entitled "Round Robin," enact a Rule entitled "Round Robin" with the following text: The "Effective Date" is the Agoran day that is 8 days after the Agoran day on which this Rule was enacted. This Rule is automatically repealed at 00:01 UTC on the Agoran day after the Effective Date. The Slate A players are VJ Rada, Cuddle Beam, D. Margaux, Aris, G., omd, Murphy, ATMunn, and Publius Scribonius Scholasticus. The Slate B players are VJ Rada, D. Margaux, G., L., omd, Corona, Trigon, twg, and Publius Scribonius Scholasticus. The Slate C players are Cuddle Beam, Aris, L., Corona, Murphy, Trigon, ATMunn, and twg. 2. Amend the Rule entitled "Round Robin" to add the following: The Slate A players CAN win the game by announcement on the Effective Date, unless the Slate B players also CAN win the game by announcement on the Effective Date. // ID: 8101 Title: Slate B to Win (v2.1) Adoption index: 1.0 Author: D. Margaux Co-authors: Aris, G., ais523 1. If there is no Rule entitled "Round Robin," enact
