Re: DIS: oh dear
On Friday, January 18, 2019 1:06 AM, ATMunn wrote: > Things have been a bit busy for me irl recently, which is why I > haven't been Agora-ing as much recently. (Hijacking thread to mention that this is the case for me as well - I know there are multiple threads I haven't replied to yet, I just haven't found time to do so yet, sorry - remember this is finals season for me. Priorities, I know.) On Friday, January 18, 2019 1:06 AM, ATMunn wrote: > I also hope to post Agora > Monthly soon, with a guide to the new systems. Good luck figuring how spaaace works, it appears to be completely broken in multiple different ways judging by the messages I've skimmed... :P -twg
DIS: oh dear
Those were literally the words out of my mouth when I checked the Agora folder. Judging from the message subjects, it appears that we now have space and politics. There's a lot of messages, which will take a while to go through. Things have been a bit busy for me irl recently, which is why I haven't been Agora-ing as much recently. This is just a heads-up that I'm not dead but am going to need to have some time to go through all this. I'll probably do that on the weekend. I also hope to post Agora Monthly soon, with a guide to the new systems.
Re: DIS: the other CFJ (Re: extremely ridiculous)
On 1/17/2019 1:10 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > I prefer interpretation #2. The person being communicated to is the > resolver; what is necessary is that e has knowledge sufficient to > determine the number being communicated. If we go with #2, here's something I just thought of. Yesterday you stated (as a resolver) that I (as a combatant) have sent you my desired value for Space Battle #0002. So you've said that my value is something you know. What if the second combatant then sends "I wish to spend whatever G. spent, +1"? On 1/17/2019 1:10 PM, D. Margaux wrote: On Jan 17, 2019, at 3:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: That's worth thinking about, but first I was curious at other people's thoughts between #1 and #2. I prefer interpretation #2. The person being communicated to is the resolver; what is necessary is that e has knowledge sufficient to determine the number being communicated. If we find in favor of #2, there's a secondary question: whether we take twg's word that e had set a definition for tau ahead of time, so that D. Margaux's 'tau+1' communication uniquely defined a value when it was made. So it's basically a "what standard of evidence do we accept?" case rather than a "what constitutes communication". It is not clear to me that twg said that e had determined a value for “rau” in advance of the communication. In eir initial message, e communicated that the value was “rau,” a word in eir own language, but I don’t think e said that “rau” had a fixed determinate value at that point. And later messages indicate that “rau” had a Humpty Dumpty/Alice in Wonderland quality to it, where it came to mean different things according to what twg was inclined at any given time. So that’s why I think rau and rau+1 actually didn’t communicate any value at the times they were communicated.
Re: DIS: the other CFJ (Re: extremely ridiculous)
> On Jan 17, 2019, at 3:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > That's worth thinking about, but first I was curious at other people's > thoughts between #1 and #2. I prefer interpretation #2. The person being communicated to is the resolver; what is necessary is that e has knowledge sufficient to determine the number being communicated. > If we find in favor of #2, there's a secondary question: whether we take > twg's word that e had set a definition for tau ahead of time, so that D. > Margaux's 'tau+1' communication uniquely defined a value when it was made. So > it's basically a "what standard of evidence do we accept?" case rather than a > "what constitutes communication". It is not clear to me that twg said that e had determined a value for “rau” in advance of the communication. In eir initial message, e communicated that the value was “rau,” a word in eir own language, but I don’t think e said that “rau” had a fixed determinate value at that point. And later messages indicate that “rau” had a Humpty Dumpty/Alice in Wonderland quality to it, where it came to mean different things according to what twg was inclined at any given time. So that’s why I think rau and rau+1 actually didn’t communicate any value at the times they were communicated.
DIS: non-combatants
In space battles: > 4) the non-combatant who has least recently registered. I don't see anything restricting this pool to "players". So it could be: 1. If current players only, it's omd. This is an issue in its own right because I don't expect response from omd; moreover we don't generally impose duties on non-officers/non-judges. 2. If "least recently registered" means they have to have registered at least once to be in the pool, then: - it could be Michael, who began the game and was a player continuously until 2007 (e didn't deregister and re-register at any point according to the Registrar's monthly report). - Michael started the game with emself defined as a part of the game (R104) so maybe e never "registered". So it would be the first person who joined after em without re-registering. That's unknowable (from the Registrar's monthly report, anyway).
DIS: the other CFJ (Re: extremely ridiculous)
On 1/15/2019 4:05 PM, D. Margaux wrote: >>> I CFJ, barring D. Margaux: "D. Margaux has fulfilled eir obligation, >>> detailed in the rule entitled 'Space Battles', to 'once communicate to >>> the resolver the amount of Energy [e wishes] to spend" in Space Battle >>> 0001." I think this is a very different situation then the zombie one, and there's a strong case to be made for TRUE. So starting a different thread here. Let's say D. Margaux and twg had the following private conversation: twg: I've picked a secret number - I'll call it tau. Here's a hash so you know that I've chosen what tau is ahead of time. D. Margaux: Sure, I'll bite: I wish to spend tau+1. twg: Right, I now know exactly how much you wish to spend. Then when twg later publishes both sides, e reveals the hash contents, and tau has a reasonable, appropriate value. Now there's two ways to adjudicate this: 1. "communicate to the resolver the amount of Energy" must be judged strictly with all the onus of communication on the combatant. That is, D. Margaux's messages alone must contain sufficient information to communicate a value to any typical Agoran observer privy to D. Margaux's messages (but not privy to the contents of the hash). This would result in false. 2. "communicate to the resolver [twg]" can include context known to twg. Here, D. Margaux of eir own free will communicated sufficient information to twg for the value to be determined by the resolver. While risky on D. Margaux's part, it was eir risk to take, of eir own free will. This would result in true. In general, for private conversations, we've tended to lean towards #2: allowing lingo and context to evolve, or allowing private contracts / communications to work. That allows for more flexible, enjoyable gameplay (where "clever arrangements" are part of that). The downside is, if done in an official context (not a contract), it puts some onus on the Resolver to privately decide if weird communication attempts qualify (if e publicly reveals the two combatant's values, and one turns out to be invalidly submitted, e's revealed the other combatant's value too early and has broken the rules). This might be especially onerous/unfair if the duty falls to "the non-combatant who has least recently registered". If we find in favor of #2, there's a secondary question: whether we take twg's word that e had set a definition for tau ahead of time, so that D. Margaux's 'tau+1' communication uniquely defined a value when it was made. So it's basically a "what standard of evidence do we accept?" case rather than a "what constitutes communication". That's worth thinking about, but first I was curious at other people's thoughts between #1 and #2.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but
On 1/16/2019 5:37 AM, D. Margaux wrote:> >> On Jan 16, 2019, at 4:10 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >> If the original attempt failed at all, I would have expected it to be >> because of R2466's prohibition of sending-messages-on-behalf. I realise >> that contradicts CFJ 3649 but to be honest I'm not 100% certain, in >> hindsight, that that judgement was correct anyway. > > I agree that CFJ 3649 is poorly reasoned and probably shouldn’t be > followed. It’s not obvious that the judge of that CFJ knew of the > prohibition against sending messages when “acting on behalf.” I remember disagreeing with 3649 it at the time, can't remember if I attempted to file a Motion or just discussed it a bit and let it pass. In any case, here's my take on Tenhigitsune's case (proto-judgement): tl;dr you can't "communicate to" someone on behalf of a zombie because you can't send messages on their behalf. In general, in Agora, we abstract a lot of things (real currencies become virtual currencies, etc.) However, we are grounded in some baseline realities. Of course, some of those "realities", such as whether free will exists, are deep philosophical questions - over time, Agora has built up some precedents around those. One such precedent is in CFJ 1895 (a discussion of free will and Aristotelian causality). This found that a "baseline axiom" in Agora is that the game is played by discrete, identifiable agents of free will - i.e. "natural persons". The assumption is that "personhood" is absolute - you can create a legal construct that accepts one person's actions on behalf of another, but the agent never "becomes" the other person. This fundamental assumption extents to the concept of "knowledge". Because each person's knowledge is fundamentally independent, an actor cannot "pass on a principal's knowledge" (i.e. "communicate to") a third party. Again, we could put in Rules-language to create a legal fiction that allows it, but such communication cannot happen naturally. Currently, the R2466 explicitly forbids the legal fiction that an actor can act on behalf of a principal to "send a message". While the context of "send a message" is generally "send an email", in this case it should be taken colloquially and broadly - one can "send a message" in a variety of ways. So in the broader context, "sending a message" is simply to "communicate" to someone, whether via email, in-person, or a horse's head in someone's bed. So an actor cannot communicate with anyone on-behalf-of a principal. In R2466 this is explicit, but even without the prohibition in R2466, it is impossible: as per CFJ 1895 "Every assumed act of free will can be traced to a particular person's desire. Thus, as final cause and intention, this intention, and free will is, also non-transferable, in the most fundamental sense." The "act of communicating" is fundamentally an act of free will, an act traceable to a particular person's desire. And that person is the actor, not the principal[*]. The Rule "Space Battles" states that a certain action is accomplished by communicating to another party - the communication is the action. The Rule is Power-1. R2466 is power-3, so this trumps any ability that might be implied in lower-powered rules, and as discussed above, there's no "natural" ability for an actor to communicate on behalf of a principal[**]. Therefore, a person CANNOT act on behalf of another to communicate the required information. [*] This is specific to cases where the actor "originated" the original thought (i.e. the origin of the message was the actor's free will, not the principal's). For example, if the Principal (of eir own accord) sends a message to a private party, and the private party forwards the message to a forum, it's possible to find that the Principal communicated with the forum "via the private party". But this is only true if the Principal, as an agent of free will, originated the content of the message. [**] This discussion of what may happen "naturally" is necessary because it's physically impossible to block two free agents from communicating: a rule that says "two people CANNOT communicate about X" would have no meaning when the two people actually did so, which is why we use SHALL NOT to control acts of communication between free agents. So if R2466 were purporting to invalidate communications between free agents, it would fail due to physical reality.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8143-8145 and 8142
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 9:44 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On 1/16/2019 12:48 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > No, there's no need. I initiate an election for Assessor, beginning the > > nomination period. This is a bad enough mistake (considering it's > actually > the second time I've made it recently) that I don't think it would be > > right for me to continue in the position. Even if I made that pledge, > > nobody would trust me, and rightly so. > > Honestly, this rose to the "everyone is tempted and gets one warning" > stage for me. Maybe accompanied by some sharing of your profit with > Trigon if that's appropriate compensation. twg, what it’s worth, I think you should stay on. My impeachment attempt was intended to get you to make a pledge and secondarily to test how reluctant the Agoran public would be to impeach an officer. I didn’t actually expect it to go anywhere. You’ve been a pretty good Assesor, overall, and I, for one, would be happy to see you continue in the office. -Aris
